The Second Apocalypse

Miscellaneous Chatter => General Misc. => Topic started by: Madness on August 17, 2017, 05:35:06 pm

Title: World War IV
Post by: Madness on August 17, 2017, 05:35:06 pm
Subject heading as per Woden.

Discussing the attack in Barcelona (and tangentially those preceding it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-ramming_attack#List_of_vehicle-ramming_attacks)).
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Wilshire on August 17, 2017, 05:37:20 pm
So, whats WWIII, and whats WWIV?

Also, what distinguishes a War and a World War?
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Madness on August 17, 2017, 05:51:28 pm
WWIII is the Cold War for me.

We are actually in WWIV. Not an open traditional conflict, but a fucking war after all.
It is a war. And it has been for centuries, guerrilla is not war? Yes, it is. And terrorism is a elaborate lowcost form of guerrilla.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Woden on August 17, 2017, 05:57:38 pm
Ok, here my confusing thoughts about the matter:

A WW implies for me lots of contenders.

Simplifying:

The WW3 was West and satellites vs USSR and satellites. So IMHO it was a WW.
I t was a cold war, but it had some damn hot episodes - Korea, Vietnam, Afganistan, etc.

The WW4 it started just when the 3 ended with the dissolution of USSR. It is another kind of war, but we had two wars in Irak, another in Afganistan, and then lots of internal conflicts in Libia, Siria, Egypt, Yemen. And terrorists attacks everywhere.
Maybe it is not a proper WW like the others (that had clear contenders) but a readjustment of the balance that was broken with the end of Cold War. In any case it is a fucking nightmare.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Wilshire on August 17, 2017, 06:52:06 pm
To me having it broadly defined as such makes it meaningless.

Every conflict is very nearly a world war. Nothing happens in a vacuum, everything is connected. Genocide in africa affects gun production in the US.

WW-Infinite. (did the romans have a symbol to represent infinite?)

Terrorism is no different than any other crime involving people killing people. We don't call every murderer a war criminal, because war is a specific defined state. If I drove my car into a crowd, I'd just be a murderer, but if I do it while screaming 'praise jesus' I'm a religious fanatical terrorist? Bah. Just people killing people, no need to make every criminal a hero of some cause, a martyr for some belief.

Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Woden on August 17, 2017, 07:08:09 pm
Yes, maybe. But if you ask them, they will tell you that they are soldiers (holy fucking soldiers) and that they are fighting a war, a holy one.

Von Clausewitz said that "all war presupposes human weakness and seeks to exploit it", and these fucking bastards are doing exactly this. They use fear and terror (who are sons of Ares, by the way) to achieve their goals (destroy their enemy and impose their "peace"). They are not common criminals, they are more (or less) and the have not to be treated only like criminal scum, and obviously they don't deserve our pity, it is not our fucking fault that they are terrorists (although some people tend to believe that).
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: MSJ on August 17, 2017, 07:30:55 pm
The screwed up thing about terrorism is, how exactly do you fight it? I mean, I know some are for just bombing every Islamic country and what not, but that's too many innocents for my liking. I don't understand Islam as well as I should. I've watched videos were they say that it is Holy and righteous for a Muslim to lie to your face and play dirty behind your back, there is name for it,  though I don't know what. I've met many very nice human beings that are Muslim and I don't know what to think about that piece of info, or, if it's even true.

There is no clear cut and easy way to fight terrorism, which is what frustrates so many people. Its like we gotta wait for them to mess up or blow up something before you can find out "who" you are even fighting.

I seen a commercial for a show on History Channel about it and the guy said, "If you think we are even close to seeing the worse of it, your kidding yourself.". So, it's a hard enemy to chase down and one that's not going anywhere.

ETA: the word is Tiqaya and it's just a glance at Wiki and it says only allowed to use when under serious duress and the right-wing America use it as a way to spread fear of Islam. It was a right-wing friend on Facebook who posted the video...
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Woden on August 17, 2017, 07:52:47 pm
It is a great problem indeed and I think that there is no good solutions at all.
All that the politicians had tried have not worked. And the people are growing tired of the political correctness that have made the problem worse - then Trump, LePen, Brexit, etc.
Anyway we are screwed.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Francis Buck's Crush on August 17, 2017, 08:45:43 pm
The screwed up thing about terrorism is, how exactly do you fight it? I mean, I know some are for just bombing every Islamic country and what not, but that's too many innocents for my liking. I don't understand Islam as well as I should. I've watched videos were they say that it is Holy and righteous for a Muslim to lie to your face and play dirty behind your back, there is name for it,  though I don't know what. I've met many very nice human beings that are Muslim and I don't know what to think about that piece of info, or, if it's even true.

There is no clear cut and easy way to fight terrorism, which is what frustrates so many people. Its like we gotta wait for them to mess up or blow up something before you can find out "who" you are even fighting.

I seen a commercial for a show on History Channel about it and the guy said, "If you think we are even close to seeing the worse of it, your kidding yourself.". So, it's a hard enemy to chase down and one that's not going anywhere.

ETA: the word is Tiqaya and it's just a glance at Wiki and it says only allowed to use when under serious duress and the right-wing America use it as a way to spread fear of Islam. It was a right-wing friend on Facebook who posted the video...
Lmao.

About Spain: Damn. Just... Damn.

It is a great problem indeed and I think that there is no good solutions at all.
All that the politicians had tried have not worked. And the people are growing tired of the political correctness that have made the problem worse - then Trump, LePen, Brexit, etc.
Anyway we are screwed.
Fighting ISIS. That's the solution. These people are cowards, just like the Nazis. Hit at THEIR land, hit hard and it is done. These fuckers kill everybody they can kill. It's about time. As long as you don't get fully retarded like Putin ( Bombs Syrian cities to "kill terrorists " , kills 1000 innocents and 2 terrorists. ) .Also Woden, I am sure that you know that LePen is irrelevant now :) .
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Francis Buck's Crush on August 17, 2017, 08:46:39 pm
And hey, did I sleep through a World War or what?
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Woden on August 17, 2017, 09:00:12 pm
I agree that anihilate these fuckers is the only way. But it is not enough, who is behind them? who has given (and is giving) them money and support? This Unholy Consult has to be destroyed too.
But some of them are like skin-spies among us and pretend to be friends, etc. How to deal with them?


LePen is irrelevant only due to the french political system, she had a bunch of voters in first and second rounds, but fortunately this is not enough. Other countries do not have these counterweights and could end in the hands of demagogs (Spain included, here we would be so retards to have some kind of imitators of venezuelan communists, lol be praised).
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: MSJ on August 17, 2017, 09:23:14 pm
Redeagl, dont take only part of what I say and not the rest, thats unfair. I said I didn't even know if it's true and whether to believe at all. If its part of the religion, I am sure it's abused and used in the wrong way. As is done in all religions.

Hey, I don't lose any sleep over terrorism, Im not afraid of Muslims, I have/had Muslims as true friends and neighbors. Im not alt-right and spreading propaganda, but, as I said I am not at all familiar enough with the religion to know what is true and what isnt. There is a divide between Islam and the West, that I know for certain. Or, we wouldn't be here having this talk.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: MSJ on August 17, 2017, 09:31:29 pm
Quote
Fighting ISIS. That's the solution. These people are cowards, just like the Nazis. Hit at THEIR land, hit hard and it is done. These fuckers kill everybody they can kill. It's about time. As long as you don't get fully retarded like Putin ( Bombs Syrian cities to "kill terrorists " , kills 1000 innocents and 2 terrorists. ) .Also Woden, I am sure that you know that LePen is irrelevant now :) .

I think that's a little too easy for it to be the solution. Terrorism is everywhere, and extremism is an idea, not a people. You can't pinpoint it and wipe it out. And, the last thing I would want to do if it was my decision, is create more enemies. Its why,  "just bomb them" isnt gonna work.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Francis Buck's Crush on August 17, 2017, 11:18:24 pm
Redeagl, dont take only part of what I say and not the rest, thats unfair. I said I didn't even know if it's true and whether to believe at all. If its part of the religion, I am sure it's abused and used in the wrong way. As is done in all religions.

Hey, I don't lose any sleep over terrorism, Im not afraid of Muslims, I have/had Muslims as true friends and neighbors. Im not alt-right and spreading propaganda, but, as I said I am not at all familiar enough with the religion to know what is true and what isnt. There is a divide between Islam and the West, that I know for certain. Or, we wouldn't be here having this talk.
MSJ, I was laughing at the ignorance of whoever the person who said that. Not you :)  I read your full comment.

About the underlined part: It's far more complicated than that. And most of it doesn't have much to do with the religion. While we are all calling ISIS extremists and all, 99.99999% of their actions are condemned already by Islam.Which leads us to the absence of education, education needs money.That's the heart of the problem.The political state of the Middle-East post WWII wasn't pretty. And it still is. Except the rich gulf countries, most people here are poorer than minimum wage workers in the States for example. Corruption and Tyranny are the only rulers. And of course, why not use religion to benefit you along the way?  And like Woden says, the Skin Spies.... To be honest, I don't see any thing good happening in the more poor, war torn middle eastern countries ( From which Terrorists come from)  in the near future. For now, any country with a good military must fight ISIS, not bitch about it on Twitter. You can't fight an idea with a gun, but you can fight terrorists with it, then you can see about fighting the ISIS and right wingers version of Islam.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: MSJ on August 17, 2017, 11:39:02 pm
Quote from:  Redeagl
MSJ, I was laughing at the ignorance of whoever the person who said that. Not you :)  I read your full comment.

Okay, I gotcha. ;)
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Woden on August 18, 2017, 10:10:16 am
Five more terrorist bastards killed by cops last night in another terrorist attack near Barcelona.

And it seems that the fuckers were planning some great attack with explosives but hopefully they fucked it up and blowed up two of them while manipulating the explosives.
Only when this went wrong they made the attacks in Las Ramblas in Barcelona and later in Cambrils as plan B.

One of the bastards still missing, though.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: H on August 18, 2017, 11:35:59 am
Yes, maybe. But if you ask them, they will tell you that they are soldiers (holy fucking soldiers) and that they are fighting a war, a holy one.

Von Clausewitz said that "all war presupposes human weakness and seeks to exploit it", and these fucking bastards are doing exactly this. They use fear and terror (who are sons of Ares, by the way) to achieve their goals (destroy their enemy and impose their "peace"). They are not common criminals, they are more (or less) and the have not to be treated only like criminal scum, and obviously they don't deserve our pity, it is not our fucking fault that they are terrorists (although some people tend to believe that).

Let us not forget another Carl von Clausewitz aphorism: "War is the continuation of politics by other means."

This case is really no different, just the "battlefield" is.  Gone are the days of armies lining up against armies, or the idea of anything like a defined battlefield.  What this is, far more than an armed conflict, is a cultural battle.  This is why no army will win it, because this is a political battle fought over (and about) cultural dominance.

It's not about religion, not in the sense that anything is holy or not.  It's about the pragmatism of power.  Power to dictate, to have and to hold people.

The screwed up thing about terrorism is, how exactly do you fight it?

You win by not falling directly into the trap of imagining this an actual war.  You win by not becoming exactly what your "enemy" paints you as.  You win by not acting in accordance with shitty behavior.  In another thread, I talked about my personal "Life Lessons 101."  I think number one on that list has to be, "Just because someone acts like an asshole, doesn't mean you should."

While it's pretty shitty in the moment to answer terror and bombs and violence with tolerance, humanitarian aid and literal kindness, that is the actual answer.

The problem is that it is difficult.  Because we have an equivalence that vengeance and justice are one.  And maybe they are.  But vengeance only begets more vengeance.  And what then of justice?  Is it just that a small group of people get to dictate how everyone else behaves?  Is it just that we have to erode our personal morals just because someone is willing to subvert them?

Quote
Since all men count themselves righteous, and since no righteous man raises his hand against the innocent, a man need only strike another to make him evil.

From TJE, chapter 11.  This cuts direct to the heart of it, really.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: themerchant on August 18, 2017, 11:45:48 am
Some terrorist groups are just privateers for nations.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Woden on August 18, 2017, 11:47:47 am
The politic of tolerance and defeat has put in this dire (and irreversible) situation. We are in the same position that of Rome with the Goths, and in a few years our "Rome" will be utterly destroyed. We are damned.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Wilshire on August 18, 2017, 12:10:45 pm
Terrorism isn't real. Just a bunch of worthless criminals. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying its not horrible for people to kill people, nor am I denying that there are people doing horrible things in the world. But calling for war is what they want.

They are about as effective as internet trolls. What makes a troll effective? Engaging it. Talking to it. Building for it a soapbox so that it may shout louder for others to hear. You can't fight an ideology with guns. Take a line from TSA: To fight is to feed it, to punish it is to breed it, madness knows no bridle but the knife. Trouble is, killing someone for an ideology does not kill the ideology, and in fact it validates the cause. You simply make the problem worse.

War creates little else but more war. Look at the US. We've been at war for decades with, well, everything - and what has it got anyone but pain and suffering? The World derides us for being warmongerers, despises us, As they should -
 attacking another country for their belief structure, call them terrorists or not, makes you no better than terrorists yourselves.

Its all fear mongering. Terrorism is entirely ineffectual. 13 people died? A tragedy yes, but millions die every day, and it doesn't make news. Give it a news story, and its somehow important. We've now made heroes and martyrs out of every single one of those criminals, which strengthens their ideology, brings them more recruits, makes the problem worse.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Wilshire on August 18, 2017, 12:13:36 pm
The politic of tolerance and defeat has put in this dire (and irreversible) situation. We are in the same position that of Rome with the Goths, and in a few years our "Rome" will be utterly destroyed. We are damned.
"We" being who? Barcelona? The greater EU? NATO? The UN?

There will always be 'evil' to kill. And it is, conveniently, always the side you aren't on. How fortunate "we" are always rome and "they" are always the goths, don't you think?
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: H on August 18, 2017, 12:14:18 pm
The politic of tolerance and defeat has put in this dire (and irreversible) situation. We are in the same position that of Rome with the Goths, and in a few years our "Rome" will be utterly destroyed. We are damned.

I couldn't disagree more.

We are only damned if we allow our morals to be subverted, which is exactly what the action of terrorism is mostly for.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Wilshire on August 18, 2017, 12:19:01 pm
The politic of tolerance and defeat has put in this dire (and irreversible) situation. We are in the same position that of Rome with the Goths, and in a few years our "Rome" will be utterly destroyed. We are damned.

I couldn't disagree more.

We are only damned if we allow our morals to be subverted, which is exactly what the action of terrorism is mostly for.

So there is a tragedy, and the world has lost all hope? 13 people killed, plus the 5 now dead terrorists, and the world is lost?

This is how terrorism works. It makes you afraid. Makes you lash out. Makes you as they are, to feel as they feel.

If you hate them so much, you should do your best not to become them, which is exactly what's happening.

20 dead is barely even a traffic accident. The world doesn't die every time a car flips over, but if we called for all car industries to be burned to the ground, we'd truly be lost... Yet this is what you are calling for?

Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Woden on August 18, 2017, 12:20:50 pm
The politic of tolerance and defeat has put in this dire (and irreversible) situation. We are in the same position that of Rome with the Goths, and in a few years our "Rome" will be utterly destroyed. We are damned.
"We" being who? Barcelona? The greater EU? NATO? The UN?

There will always be 'evil' to kill. And it is, conveniently, always the side you aren't on. How fortunate "we" are always rome and "they" are always the goths, don't you think?

Europe is doomed.
In this case, yes, we are Rome, and we would be lucky that the enemy were the Goths.
Or do you think that the salafist fuckers are good democrat tolerant guys? No, man, they want to impose us a fascist Caliphate in our very home.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Wilshire on August 18, 2017, 12:23:33 pm
The politic of tolerance and defeat has put in this dire (and irreversible) situation. We are in the same position that of Rome with the Goths, and in a few years our "Rome" will be utterly destroyed. We are damned.
"We" being who? Barcelona? The greater EU? NATO? The UN?

There will always be 'evil' to kill. And it is, conveniently, always the side you aren't on. How fortunate "we" are always rome and "they" are always the goths, don't you think?

Europe is doomed.
In this case, yes, we are Rome, and we would be lucky that the enemy were the Goths.
Or do you think that the salafist fuckers are good democrat tolerant guys? No, man, they want to impose us a fascist Caliphate in our very home.

First of all, The worst tragedy in my time, in my country, killed a couple thousand. A couple thousand, out of tens of millions. Statistically, that's 0% of people. Statically, it didn't happen.

And 2nd, imposing marshal law on another country, whether its you doing it to someone else, or them doing it to you, is the same.

You are calling for war, you are no better than the terrorist.

---
3rd, in their minds, They are Rome, and You are the Goths. Does that justify their actions?
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Woden on August 18, 2017, 12:24:40 pm
The politic of tolerance and defeat has put in this dire (and irreversible) situation. We are in the same position that of Rome with the Goths, and in a few years our "Rome" will be utterly destroyed. We are damned.

I couldn't disagree more.

We are only damned if we allow our morals to be subverted, which is exactly what the action of terrorism is mostly for.

So there is a tragedy, and the world has lost all hope? 13 people killed, plus the 5 now dead terrorists, and the world is lost?

This is how terrorism works. It makes you afraid. Makes you lash out. Makes you as they are, to feel as they feel.

If you hate them so much, you should do your best not to become them, which is exactly what's happening.

20 dead is barely even a traffic accident. The world doesn't die every time a car flips over, but if we called for all car industries to be burned to the ground, we'd truly be lost... Yet this is what you are calling for?

The world is not lost for this attack. But this is a symptom of a greater disease.
I have no fucking hope for the EU. We are strangers in our own countries. If we do nothing we will be subsumed, if we do we are fascists. We are fucked up in any case.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Wilshire on August 18, 2017, 12:25:42 pm
IMO, its what you get when you let emotion and religion rule the world.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Wilshire on August 18, 2017, 12:28:44 pm
Sorry, I probably sound rather strange.

I'm really not trying to say that 'doing nothing' is the answer. Nor am I saying that what happens isn't tragic, and I hope you don't take it that way.

I don't know what the right answer is, but I do (obviously) have some thoughts on what probably won't work, though its entirely possible I'm wrong.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Woden on August 18, 2017, 12:29:49 pm
The politic of tolerance and defeat has put in this dire (and irreversible) situation. We are in the same position that of Rome with the Goths, and in a few years our "Rome" will be utterly destroyed. We are damned.
"We" being who? Barcelona? The greater EU? NATO? The UN?

There will always be 'evil' to kill. And it is, conveniently, always the side you aren't on. How fortunate "we" are always rome and "they" are always the goths, don't you think?

Europe is doomed.
In this case, yes, we are Rome, and we would be lucky that the enemy were the Goths.
Or do you think that the salafist fuckers are good democrat tolerant guys? No, man, they want to impose us a fascist Caliphate in our very home.

First of all, The worst tragedy in my time, in my country, killed a couple thousand. A couple thousand, out of tens of millions. Statistically, that's 0% of people. Statically, it didn't happen.

And 2nd, imposing marshal law on another country, whether its you doing it to someone else, or them doing it to you, is the same.

You are calling for war, you are no better than the terrorist.

---
3rd, in their minds, They are Rome, and You are the Goths. Does that justify their actions?

So you propose do nothing and remain in calm in our best white togas as the gauls enter the Capitolium and sack us. This sounds like "vae victis" for me.

Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Woden on August 18, 2017, 12:31:30 pm
IMO, its what you get when you let emotion and religion rule the world.

Yes, it would be better if all of us were dûnyain.  ;)
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Wilshire on August 18, 2017, 12:34:07 pm
IMO, its what you get when you let emotion and religion rule the world.
Yes, it would be better if all of us were dûnyain.  ;)

I think so, yes. All religion is a cancer. Its used as a mechanism to control people, and keep the old guard in power, and as an excuse to commit evil. Nothing else.
As long as we allow it to control the minds and hearts of everyone, the world is doomed.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Woden on August 18, 2017, 12:42:18 pm
I agree.

By the way I want to apologize for my multiple faults of expression - that probably originate some misunderstanding. English is obviously not my mother tongue, and I haven't studied it since I left high school 25 five years ago. I have read a lot in english since then but it is hard for me to express my thoughts in a elaborate form in english. I will try to do my best.
Thanks guys for being patient with me.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Wilshire on August 18, 2017, 12:46:28 pm
Thanks for participating. And no, I apologize for only speaking one language - its actually pretty embarrassing lol.

Its also very easy for me to pretend to be level headed here, since I'm so far removed from the actual violence. This is the real world, and it can be dark and gritty. I'm sorry for elevating my tone in any way, so thank you for your patients with me :) .
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: H on August 18, 2017, 12:55:40 pm
IMO, its what you get when you let emotion and religion rule the world.
Yes, it would be better if all of us were dûnyain.  ;)

I think so, yes. All religion is a cancer. Its used as a mechanism to control people, and keep the old guard in power, and as an excuse to commit evil. Nothing else.
As long as we allow it to control the minds and hearts of everyone, the world is doomed.

I can't say I like that definition.  Religion isn't inherently good or evil.

The problem is people.  People are corrupt.  Every power structure avails itself to corruption.  In reality, religion should be the least susceptible, but unfortunately the least is still not very good.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Wilshire on August 18, 2017, 01:17:29 pm
IMO, its what you get when you let emotion and religion rule the world.
Yes, it would be better if all of us were dûnyain.  ;)

I think so, yes. All religion is a cancer. Its used as a mechanism to control people, and keep the old guard in power, and as an excuse to commit evil. Nothing else.
As long as we allow it to control the minds and hearts of everyone, the world is doomed.

I can't say I like that definition.  Religion isn't inherently good or evil.

The problem is people.  People are corrupt.  Every power structure avails itself to corruption.  In reality, religion should be the least susceptible, but unfortunately the least is still not very good.

The problem with religion, for me, is it's unassailable and irrefutable claims. It makes it so easy to always be the good guy and other's to be the bad guy, without any chance of reconciliation.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Woden on August 18, 2017, 01:26:16 pm
And the religion ignores our human insignificance in a cosmic scale. If the God exists we are less than fleas in Its Eyes - lol, I love the dialog Kellhus-Proyas about the God.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: pail on August 18, 2017, 01:51:47 pm
It's far more complicated than that. And most of it doesn't have much to do with the religion. While we are all calling ISIS extremists and all, 99.99999% of their actions are condemned already by Islam.

This isn't wrong, but it depends on how you define Islam. Islam as believed and practiced by the majority of Muslims around the world in 2017? Of course, most Muslims are much more moderate than ISIS, so their brand of Islam would condemn many of ISIS' actions. That's the most prevalent brand and we can't dismiss it because religions are like living things that evolve with time. On the other hand, if we define Islam as the set of beliefs and ideals and laws described by Islam's most important texts, the Quran and the hadith, I would argue that the most faithful and accurate practitioners of the religion in the world are ISIS.

Which leads us to the absence of education, education needs money.That's the heart of the problem.

This was my intuition as well: if we could just give everyone a good education and fulfill all their basic needs, terrorism would be solved. But it turns out that the data shows no negative correlation between being well-educated and becoming a terrorist, and, in some studies, even shows a positive correlation!

You can't fight an idea with a gun

Can't you though? Didn't guns and bombs defeat Nazism? Rather than looking at war as a totally different arena from a battle of ideas, I look at it as the last resort, or the escalation, of that same battle. We want to beat dangerous ideas with other ideas and rationality so that we don't have to beat them with guns. But history has shown, by my reading of it at least, that guns can in fact kill them when it comes to that.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Woden on August 18, 2017, 01:58:24 pm
"Barbarism is the natural state of mankind. Civilization is unnatural. It is a whim of circumstance. And barbarism must always ultimately triumph."

REH was right.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Wilshire on August 18, 2017, 02:04:24 pm
Can't you though? Didn't guns and bombs defeat Nazism? Rather than looking at war as a totally different arena from a battle of ideas, I look at it as the last resort, or the escalation, of that same battle. We want to beat dangerous ideas with other ideas and rationality so that we don't have to beat them with guns. But history has shown, by my reading of it at least, that guns can in fact kill them when it comes to that.

Well, most say WWI reparations led to WWII, right? And there are still natizis all around. In the united states even, we just had an attack in SC.

But arguable thats entirely different. The natzi's seized control of the country, and people were happy to drop it once 'it was over', yes?

Do you propose we kill every person that doesn't share your ideology? Because I agree that that would be an extremely effective answer. Round everyone up with violent ideologies, and burn them in big buildings. But its tough to sepparate wheat from chaff. So really, that solution is just killing everyone that believes in any ideology thats different than mine.

Oops, wait, what does that sound like?

Violence only ever begets violence.

---
Edit: Further, I'd argue WWII created Israel, wich lead to increased tensions in the middle east, which ultimately lead to IS. So that war didn't defeat anything, it kicked the can farther down the road. They know now that they can't seize power and fight a world war and win, so now, terrorisms forever.

So who really won?  IS is todays natzi's. Except we cant just invade the country because they dont have one. They exist nowhere except the hearts and minds of those who believe.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Woden on August 18, 2017, 02:15:49 pm
Yes, but to do nothing implies defeat in the end (and sranc violence).
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: H on August 18, 2017, 02:17:56 pm
The problem with religion, for me, is it's unassailable and irrefutable claims. It makes it so easy to always be the good guy and other's to be the bad guy, without any chance of reconciliation.

That kind of sounds like almost every other "-ism" I can think of though.

I just don't think labeling religion as evil is helpful, productive or particular apt.  Perhaps that's my bias.  It's people's misuse of it that it an issue.  Just like every other "-ism."

Do you propose we kill every person that doesn't share your ideology? Because I agree that that would be an extremely effective answer. Round everyone up with violent ideologies, and burn them in big buildings. But its tough to sepparate wheat from chaff. So really, that solution is just killing everyone that believes in any ideology thats different than mine.

Just don't forget to round yourself up in this example, because this is also a violent ideology.  So, once you have burned literally everyone, you will have solved the problem.  Remember, there are no crimes if no one is left alive.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Woden on August 18, 2017, 02:25:03 pm
Yes, that sounds like Amalric's definitive solution: "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius."
Kill them all. For the Lord knows those that are His own.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: H on August 18, 2017, 02:34:13 pm
Yes, but to do nothing implies defeat in the end (and sranc violence).

Doing nothing is obviously not an answer, but in 'fighting' Sranc, best to not become one yourself.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Woden on August 18, 2017, 02:35:38 pm
Yes, but to do nothing implies defeat in the end (and sranc violence).

Doing nothing is obviously not an answer, but in 'fighting' Sranc, best to not become one yourself.

Yes, we freshly know how the sranc meat corrupts.  ;)
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Francis Buck's Crush on August 18, 2017, 02:40:07 pm
It's far more complicated than that. And most of it doesn't have much to do with the religion. While we are all calling ISIS extremists and all, 99.99999% of their actions are condemned already by Islam.

This isn't wrong, but it depends on how you define Islam. Islam as believed and practiced by the majority of Muslims around the world in 2017? Of course, most Muslims are much more moderate than ISIS, so their brand of Islam would condemn many of ISIS' actions. That's the most prevalent brand and we can't dismiss it because religions are like living things that evolve with time. On the other hand, if we define Islam as the set of beliefs and ideals and laws described by Islam's most important texts, the Quran and the hadith, I would argue that the most faithful and accurate practitioners of the religion in the world are ISIS.

Which leads us to the absence of education, education needs money.That's the heart of the problem.

This was my intuition as well: if we could just give everyone a good education and fulfill all their basic needs, terrorism would be solved. But it turns out that the data shows no negative correlation between being well-educated and becoming a terrorist, and, in some studies, even shows a positive correlation!

You can't fight an idea with a gun

Can't you though? Didn't guns and bombs defeat Nazism? Rather than looking at war as a totally different arena from a battle of ideas, I look at it as the last resort, or the escalation, of that same battle. We want to beat dangerous ideas with other ideas and rationality so that we don't have to beat them with guns. But history has shown, by my reading of it at least, that guns can in fact kill them when it comes to that.
But Nazism wasn't defeated. The German Nazi army was. Nazism is still here, just look at the US.

Pail, how much do you know about Islam?  I think you have got it a bit wrong.I have read the Quran ( IN ARABIC, that's very important to your understanding of it.Old Arabic poetry in general can't be translated. ) from cover to cover twice. I once saw on the internet a post like this " The Koran is a book of peace?!!  It's a book of war against anything alive!" and then the poster proceeded to parts that show how "evil" it is. They all looked really strange for me but this one takes the cake " The Jews and Christians are perverts and stupid. Kill them. " . Safe to say, the real book have no such thing :P   
The edition I read and the hadith I know says that ISIS are some of the most damned.

Edit: About moderate Muslims being peaceful: This isn't true. I had a friend who is anything but moderate. He lives in a mostly Christian area and didn't bomb or kill anybody.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Wilshire on August 18, 2017, 02:44:35 pm
The problem with religion, for me, is it's unassailable and irrefutable claims. It makes it so easy to always be the good guy and other's to be the bad guy, without any chance of reconciliation.

That kind of sounds like almost every other "-ism" I can think of though.

I just don't think labeling religion as evil is helpful, productive or particular apt.  Perhaps that's my bias.  It's people's misuse of it that it an issue.  Just like every other "-ism."

I don't disagree. I just think the nature of religion lends itself to manipulation more so than any other system in our current timespace. 
Of course statistics and scientific studies can be cherry picked and manipulated just as easy as anything else.
People have religious fervor for their chosen scientific or nihilistic gods.
But we can't remove people from the equation, so this seems like a low hanging fruit. Nihilists aren't going around blowing up building in the name of nothing, engineers aren't building faulty bridges in the name of the mathematical gods. (I'm sure this is a trap you were hoping I'd fall in :) ).

Crazy people are crazy, and they'll always be around. Removing this or that thing honestly wont solve the problem absolutely, but there must be some place to start... Sorry I've settled on a thing you like, but of course I don't like it so its easy for me.

Do you propose we kill every person that doesn't share your ideology? Because I agree that that would be an extremely effective answer. Round everyone up with violent ideologies, and burn them in big buildings. But its tough to sepparate wheat from chaff. So really, that solution is just killing everyone that believes in any ideology thats different than mine.

Just don't forget to round yourself up in this example, because this is also a violent ideology.  So, once you have burned literally everyone, you will have solved the problem.  Remember, there are no crimes if no one is left alive.

Obviously if it were me, I'd change the rules after the fact to justify my actions and make such an eventuality unnecessary. After all, why should I burn, I saved the world ;) .
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: pail on August 18, 2017, 02:47:00 pm
So who really won?  IS is todays natzi's. Except we cant just invade the country because they dont have one. They exist nowhere except the hearts and minds of those who believe.

IS certainly has a country. IS stands for Islamic State. No other country recognizes it as a state, but it has a clearly defined territory where it rules and collects taxes.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Wilshire on August 18, 2017, 03:06:20 pm
So who really won?  IS is todays natzi's. Except we cant just invade the country because they dont have one. They exist nowhere except the hearts and minds of those who believe.

IS certainly has a country. IS stands for Islamic State. No other country recognizes it as a state, but it has a clearly defined territory where it rules and collects taxes.

Am I understanding correctly that you think that by removing that geographic region, the ideology will disappear just like Natzism? Because Natzis are still around, right, so ostensibly that line of logic doesn't pan out?

ANyway, I know what IS stands for, but I also think if you're understanding is that it only refers to a location on a map (which your above comment suggests, at least to me) and nothing to do with an ideology or religion, then I believe we might have difficulty discussing things further.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: pail on August 18, 2017, 03:13:37 pm
Am I understanding correctly that you think that by removing that geographic region, the ideology will disappear just like Natzism?

I'm not saying that, nor do I propose killing everyone that doesn't share my ideology as you asked.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Wilshire on August 18, 2017, 03:17:15 pm
Am I understanding correctly that you think that by removing that geographic region, the ideology will disappear just like Natzism?

I'm not saying that, nor do I propose killing everyone that doesn't share my ideology as you asked.

Then what are you saying? Leaving me to fill in gaps doesn't seem to be working... :)
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Francis Buck's Crush on August 18, 2017, 03:24:58 pm
I agree.

By the way I want to apologize for my multiple faults of expression - that probably originate some misunderstanding. English is obviously not my mother tongue, and I haven't studied it since I left high school 25 five years ago. I have read a lot in english since then but it is hard for me to express my thoughts in a elaborate form in english. I will try to do my best.
Thanks guys for being patient with me.
Lol Woden, you aren't alone in that ;)
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Wilshire on August 18, 2017, 03:26:22 pm
Am I understanding correctly that you think that by removing that geographic region, the ideology will disappear just like Natzism?

I'm not saying that, nor do I propose killing everyone that doesn't share my ideology as you asked.

Then what are you saying? Leaving me to fill in gaps doesn't seem to be working... :)

You guys are cool  8) . Maybe I should stop bitching and take up learning a new one.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: pail on August 18, 2017, 03:38:43 pm
Then what are you saying? Leaving me to fill in gaps doesn't seem to be working... :)

Well, going back to my first post, first I disagreed with the idea that a war of ideas can, in principle, never be won with violence, then with the idea that it's impossible to directly attack IS since it only exists as an idea. I don't think I've taken a position on the best course of action to take in our current straits!
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: H on August 18, 2017, 03:59:13 pm
The problem with religion, for me, is it's unassailable and irrefutable claims. It makes it so easy to always be the good guy and other's to be the bad guy, without any chance of reconciliation.

That kind of sounds like almost every other "-ism" I can think of though.

I just don't think labeling religion as evil is helpful, productive or particular apt.  Perhaps that's my bias.  It's people's misuse of it that it an issue.  Just like every other "-ism."

I don't disagree. I just think the nature of religion lends itself to manipulation more so than any other system in our current timespace. 
Of course statistics and scientific studies can be cherry picked and manipulated just as easy as anything else.
People have religious fervor for their chosen scientific or nihilistic gods.
But we can't remove people from the equation, so this seems like a low hanging fruit. Nihilists aren't going around blowing up building in the name of nothing, engineers aren't building faulty bridges in the name of the mathematical gods. (I'm sure this is a trap you were hoping I'd fall in :) ).

Crazy people are crazy, and they'll always be around. Removing this or that thing honestly wont solve the problem absolutely, but there must be some place to start... Sorry I've settled on a thing you like, but of course I don't like it so its easy for me.

Nihilists aren't blowing up buildings (generally) because there is no political gain from doing so.  But like you say, crazy people are crazy.  Science is a tool and people can misuse tools.  Religion is also a tool and people misuse it as well.  This doesn't preclude that one is "good" and the other "evil."  No more than a knife (easy to use a weapon) is a more evil tool than a spoon ("you scoop with a spoon" (https://youtu.be/OyQXXWaMhBM?t=177).  Sure, some things are more dangerous than others, but nothing really precludes evil, except people.

Well, I actually am not a fan of religion in any way, shape or form.  In fact, I rather dislike most parts of most of them.  However, what I like isn't really the point.

Obviously if it were me, I'd change the rules after the fact to justify my actions and make such an eventuality unnecessary. After all, why should I burn, I saved the world ;) .

Ah, the true mark of a good rule: the necessity of excepting one's self from it, haha.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Woden on August 18, 2017, 04:03:23 pm
IS has to be destroyed to the ground and its subjacent ideology fought with education and learning. But to me it is clearly necessary to defeat the IS "army" and remove their cursed leaders. Without forgetting the ruthless persecution of terrorists in Europe and their patrons in Middle East (IS, but some bastards in Qatar, Arabia and Emirates too).
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: MSJ on August 18, 2017, 07:07:09 pm
Wilshire, in sorry but downplaying terrorists to just criminals, is quite frankly the dumbest thing I think I've ever heard you say. I get your point to make make martyrs of them, thats true. But, terrorists are way more than mere criminals. The are Islamic extremists (for the most part, what this thread is about) with a clear ideology that all infidels either convert to Islam or die. Thats not just your run of the mill criminal. This is their Jihad, and one they are fighting quote effectively. I understand your want to downplay it, thats just as dangerous.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: TLEILAXU on August 19, 2017, 12:18:44 am
As long as the conditions are there, terrorists will keep coming. You don't stop terrorism by saying "we must destroy ISIS! Liberate the Middle East! Democracy for all" and then bombing everything to shit.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Wilshire on August 19, 2017, 03:13:26 pm
Wilshire, in sorry but downplaying terrorists to just criminals, is quite frankly the dumbest thing I think I've ever heard you say. I get your point to make make martyrs of them, thats true. But, terrorists are way more than mere criminals. The are Islamic extremists (for the most part, what this thread is about) with a clear ideology that all infidels either convert to Islam or die. Thats not just your run of the mill criminal. This is their Jihad, and one they are fighting quote effectively. I understand your want to downplay it, thats just as dangerous.

You say so, but obviously I disagree. I'm not downplaying anything - just look at the numbers. Terrorist killings are non-existent from a statistical standpoint. Literally 0% of people are killed by them every year. What part of 0% is effective from a global standpoint? (32,000 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3322308/Number-people-killed-terrorists-worldwide-soars-80-just-year.html) killed by "terrorists" last year in the world. 32,000/(7,000,000,000)= 0%).

Making them into THE BIG BAD makes them important. I downplay nothing, its you who is making them Terrorists. We each get to decide to give them power or not, and if you want to give them power, I can't stop you. (Obviously, situations vary from country to country, but from the US perspective at least)

I see criminals. You can see them as Unholy Evil that must be stomped into dust with the military might of the whole world. (Do I need to point out again that, from their perspective, its exactly the same?)

Take their 0%, ie total failure, and make them into the most frightening thing to exist in the world, then ask yourself, who is making them effective, is it them, or are you doing their job for them?

with a clear ideology that all infidels either convert to Islam or die. Thats not just your run of the mill criminal.
What makes this special? What killing can't be boiled down to "i want this thing, and I'm willing to kill to get it". Be it religion, or power, or sex, or money, or jewelry, or anything else?  Organized crime, both nationally and internationally, has existed for centuries. The world has kept turning.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Madness on August 19, 2017, 03:23:44 pm
I've partially read through the thread and I just don't have the time I want today to respond if I want to keep transcribing audio from Zaudunyanicon and do fandom due diligence.

Though, mostly Woden, but a couple others, I won't tolerate name-calling (literally). Referring terrorists as bastards does us no good.

This is an ideological problem before anything else. I had this conversation with my older sister yesterday regarding Charlottesville. The White Supremacists/KKK/Nazis/whatever are kids raised by cultural heritage and familial history. Clearly doing away with any one "Vendetta Generation" isn't the solution.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: MSJ on August 19, 2017, 03:35:20 pm
You say so, but obviously I disagree. I'm not downplaying anything - just look at the numbers. Terrorist killings are non-existent from a statistical standpoint. Literally 0% of people are killed by them every year. What part of 0% is effective from a global standpoint? (32,000 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3322308/Number-people-killed-terrorists-worldwide-soars-80-just-year.html) killed by "terrorists" last year in the world. 32,000/(7,000,000,000)= 0%)

Making them into THE BIG BAD makes them important. I downplay nothing, its you who is making them Terrorists. Obviously, that's your call, but I choose to not make a mountain out of a molehill. We each get to decide to give them power or not, and if you want to give them power, I can't stop you. (Obviously, situations vary from country to country, but from the US perspective at least)

I see criminals. You can see them as Unholy Evil that must be stomped into dust with the military might of the whole world. (Do I need to point out again that, from their perspective, its exactly the same?)

Take their 0%, ie total failure, and make them into the most frightening thing to exist in the world, then ask yourself, who is making them effective, is it them, or are you doing their job for them?

Terrorism isn't effective? Its taking over cities in the Middle East, nay, countries. I'm not making the into the BiG Bad, they are an dangerous and effective enemy. Wilshire, downplaying is your choice, but that's not reality.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Wilshire on August 19, 2017, 03:38:43 pm
You say so, but obviously I disagree. I'm not downplaying anything - just look at the numbers. Terrorist killings are non-existent from a statistical standpoint. Literally 0% of people are killed by them every year. What part of 0% is effective from a global standpoint? (32,000 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3322308/Number-people-killed-terrorists-worldwide-soars-80-just-year.html) killed by "terrorists" last year in the world. 32,000/(7,000,000,000)= 0%)

Making them into THE BIG BAD makes them important. I downplay nothing, its you who is making them Terrorists. Obviously, that's your call, but I choose to not make a mountain out of a molehill. We each get to decide to give them power or not, and if you want to give them power, I can't stop you. (Obviously, situations vary from country to country, but from the US perspective at least)

I see criminals. You can see them as Unholy Evil that must be stomped into dust with the military might of the whole world. (Do I need to point out again that, from their perspective, its exactly the same?)

Take their 0%, ie total failure, and make them into the most frightening thing to exist in the world, then ask yourself, who is making them effective, is it them, or are you doing their job for them?

Terrorism isn't effective? Its taking over cities in the Middle East, nay, countries. I'm not making the into the BiG Bad, they are an dangerous and effective enemy. Wilshire, downplaying is your choice, but that's not reality.


The US has been doing this for centuries. Aren't we, then, far more evil? (taking over governments, installing our own leaders, imposing our own laws, reparation payments, economic slavery, etc. )
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: MSJ on August 19, 2017, 03:44:00 pm
Quote
The US has been doing this for centuries. Aren't we, then, far more evil? (taking over governments, installing our own leaders, imposing our own laws, reparation payments, economic slavery, etc. )

To serve our interests, sure. But, our we calling for the deaths of all infidels? Have we sent out calls for terrorist acts on unsuspecting, innocent people? Your comparing apples to oranges.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Woden on August 19, 2017, 04:23:11 pm
Here at least we have the shadow of liberty and civil rights, there they have none and they want to extend their barbarism all over the world.
When they triumph, there will be no more books, no more films, no more music... all you have dear is blasphemous in the eyes of these suckers.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: solipsisticurge on August 19, 2017, 04:57:32 pm
To serve our interests, sure. But, our we calling for the deaths of all infidels? Have we sent out calls for terrorist acts on unsuspecting, innocent people? Your comparing apples to oranges.

And ISIS are engaged in military/espionage activity to serve their own interests. I'm not arguing the two are absolutely equal in subjective moral terms - a world controlled by the U.S. would be a far nicer one to live in than one controlled by ISIS - but no nation, group or ideology can claim that violent action taken "in their own interests" holds any moral superiority to violent action taken by anyone else, barring self-defense. Hell, half the reason the Middle East is such an international issue is due to culturally ignorant meddling by the US and UK post-WWI. (I laugh my ass off whenever some idiot says we need to bomb Iran into democracy. What, and erase the great job we did of overthrowing the one they had, but that wouldn't bend over to serve western economic interests?)

The word "terrorism," as distinct from "war," simply means "war carried out by individuals or groups not diplomatically recognized as sovereign." The specific targeting of civilian populations is abhorrent, but plenty of noncombatants have managed so somehow die, terrified, in sanctioned, non-"terror" military action as well.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Wilshire on August 19, 2017, 06:17:20 pm
To serve our interests, sure. But, our we calling for the deaths of all infidels? Have we sent out calls for terrorist acts on unsuspecting, innocent people? Your comparing apples to oranges.

And ISIS are engaged in military/espionage activity to serve their own interests. I'm not arguing the two are absolutely equal in subjective moral terms - a world controlled by the U.S. would be a far nicer one to live in than one controlled by ISIS - but no nation, group or ideology can claim that violent action taken "in their own interests" holds any moral superiority to violent action taken by anyone else, barring self-defense. Hell, half the reason the Middle East is such an international issue is due to culturally ignorant meddling by the US and UK post-WWI. (I laugh my ass off whenever some idiot says we need to bomb Iran into democracy. What, and erase the great job we did of overthrowing the one they had, but that wouldn't bend over to serve western economic interests?)

The word "terrorism," as distinct from "war," simply means "war carried out by individuals or groups not diplomatically recognized as sovereign." The specific targeting of civilian populations is abhorrent, but plenty of noncombatants have managed so somehow die, terrified, in sanctioned, non-"terror" military action as well.

This is what I'm attempting to point out. Killing is killing. That we can justify it when we do it, but can't justify it when someone else does it, should stink of hypocrisy. That it doesn't is really very close to all of Bakker's works.

I'm always confused why we can see how Inrithi and Fanimry are the same, Kellhus and the Consult, Sranc and The Great Ordeal... but when you call it 'crusade' and 'jihad', or 'christian' and 'islamic', or 'western' and 'middle eastern', we somehow entirely lose our ability to reflect.

Why is it so hard for us, ie 'the western world' / 'US citizens' / etc. , to even entertain the possibility that we commit evil? It was, in fact, the western world that, as solipsisticurge points out, destabilized the area to begin with.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: themerchant on August 19, 2017, 08:03:14 pm
the US/UK funded ISIS, the Israeli's provided intelligence and medical supplies, The Saudi's armed them and the Turks bought their oil.

Because for various reasons bringing down Assad's government was beneficial to them. Russia, Iran and Syria fought against that.

Hilary's state department helped facilitate the mass transport of weapons from Libya to Syria as shown in the released wiki-leak cables but all the "conspiracy sites" decided to run with that weird crazy "pizza-gate" child prostitution ring.

The media have their own agenda and some work for security services as well as their media job. The Saudi's are currently starving Yemen entirely and it never seems to be on the news.

Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: themerchant on August 19, 2017, 08:04:23 pm
Quote
The US has been doing this for centuries. Aren't we, then, far more evil? (taking over governments, installing our own leaders, imposing our own laws, reparation payments, economic slavery, etc. )

To serve our interests, sure. But, our we calling for the deaths of all infidels? Have we sent out calls for terrorist acts on unsuspecting, innocent people? Your comparing apples to oranges.

Doing shit like this since the 50's

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM0uvgHKZe8

UK doing the same shit, The party i support in Scotland doesn't even want to be in NATO cause it's not a force for good.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: MSJ on August 19, 2017, 08:56:24 pm
I get what your all saying. I bleed red, white and blue, though. So, because we took the opportunity to kill a mass-murderer of his own people (Sadaam), did result in its destabilization, it's unfortunate. But, same shit occurs in Iran, Afghanistan(dont even begin to try to argue that wasn't justified. Yoou knock down the Towers....we're fucking up your shit.), and countries that we haven't even destabilized. Africa, Palestine both use and encourage terrorism. What you think America should just stay out of World affairs? Shit, Redeagl blames us for not doing enough. So how you see it and others, even those from these countries is totally different. Destabilize that area? You mean took out one of the most dangerous mean to the planet and even his own people? Pffft. I ain't no fucking pacifist. These fuckers deserve to die and a far worse death than they get usually. But, mterrorism, is a totally different war. And, you won't get me to believe it's our fault or that our actions are on par with theirs. If you think so, pack your bags and move to Iran, then tell me how well your life is.

ETA: and ISIS wouldn't even be as big a deal as they are if our troops weren't yanked outta there in 2009 or so, against military brass wishes. And, yea, I know, we gain from the war, but we was making it a safer place until that pullout occurred. It just happened too soon.

ETAA: A Facebook friend and one who is also on TSA Facebook said today that the Left stays silent and makes excuse when it comes to Islamic extremism using terrorism and the right stays silent when shit like what happened in Charlottesville happens. She found it confusing and down right cowardice. Its all terrorism and it's all wrong. Common Criminals? No.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: themerchant on August 19, 2017, 09:46:04 pm
The Hijackers were (predominately) from Saudi Arabia and Bin Laden was in Pakistan. Why was Afghanistan justified?

Do you know who sold Saddam the gas? Do you know who put Saddam in power and used and supported his brutal war against Iran? Iran had a democratically elected government until 1953, guess which two countries supported a coup by islamic monarchists? Answers of course being UK/US.

I showed you what the Clinton Administration did, they caused the death of 500,000 Iraqi children under the age of 5 for political reasons, and had the audacity to make out it was a fair trade.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: TLEILAXU on August 19, 2017, 10:17:01 pm
Hell, half the reason the Middle East is such an international issue is due to culturally ignorant meddling by the US and UK post-WWI. (I laugh my ass off whenever some idiot says we need to bomb Iran into democracy. What, and erase the great job we did of overthrowing the one they had, but that wouldn't bend over to serve western economic interests?)
Half might be an understatement, and yeah, it's really quite sad how little recognition the CIA backed overthrow of Mosaddegh gets in its role of fueling the Islamic revolution.

I get what your all saying. I bleed red, white and blue, though. So, because we took the opportunity to kill a mass-murderer of his own people (Sadaam), did result in its destabilization, it's unfortunate. But, same shit occurs in Iran, Afghanistan(dont even begin to try to argue that wasn't justified. Yoou knock down the Towers....we're fucking up your shit.), and countries that we haven't even destabilized. Africa, Palestine both use and encourage terrorism.
If your aim is to destroy regimes you find morally reprehensible, why not start with Saudi Arabia, arguably the most unequal country on earth in terms of female and immigrant rights.

What you think America should just stay out of World affairs?
That'd be a start. We Europeans wouldn't have to deal with this huge refugee mess if Assad had just been allowed to violently shut down the demonstrations.

Destabilize that area? You mean took out one of the most dangerous mean to the planet and even his own people? Pffft
Have you ever considered that this might've been something engineered to morally justify violent actions?

To serve our interests, sure. But, our we calling for the deaths of all infidels?
Pffft. I ain't no fucking pacifist. These fuckers deserve to die and a far worse death than they get usually.
Well, it's not THAT far off  8)

And, you won't get me to believe it's our fault or that our actions are on par with theirs. If you think so, pack your bags and move to Iran, then tell me how well your life is.
I have friends who've been to Iran (one of them a female), and they said it's quite a nice place. I wouldn't want to live there though, especially given the economic situation.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: MSJ on August 20, 2017, 01:11:37 am
Quote from:  Tleilaxu
If your aim is to destroy regimes you find morally reprehensible, why not start with Saudi Arabia, arguably the most unequal country on earth in terms of female and immigrant rights.

Without a doubt. But, MONEY, OIL..and we all know this is the reason we turn a blind eye.

Quote
That'd be a start. We Europeans wouldn't have to deal with this huge refugee mess if Assad had just been allowed to violently shut down the demonstrations.

You know it and I know it...never going to happen. Even if we did, as world super-power we would catch just as much flack for standing by idly. Its a lose-lose situation.

Quote
Have you ever considered that this might've been something engineered to morally justify violent actions?

Yep, I'm no fool. Just another nation whose resources we want and were the World Bank wants a presence. Still, I am glad and the world is a better place without Sadaam. A man who committed mass genocide in his own people for decades and ruled by terror.

Quote
I have friends who've been to Iran (one of them a female), and they said it's quite a nice place. I wouldn't want to live there though, especially given the economic situation.

Same a Saudi Arabia, a country under Shariah Law. Where women are beheaded for adultery (or less) while men have as much fun as they want. Selling off daughters, throwing members of the LGBTQ+ community off of roofs and persecuting Christians and Jews. Doesn't sound like a nice place to me.

Anything else?
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: MSJ on August 20, 2017, 01:17:26 am
Quote from:  themerchant
The Hijackers were (predominately) from Saudi Arabia and Bin Laden was in Pakistan. Why was Afghanistan justified?

The train ground and safe haven for Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden, those who orchestrated the attack. The deserved every bit of what the got.

ETA: not to mention removing the Taliban. Another scourge of the Earth.

Look, I know America's hand are not clean, not by a mile. But, some of what we do is good and benefits those that live there. You just have to give their government and new military time to train and get a handle of the situation on there own before you go and pull all our troops out. Its a touchy situation, no doubt about it. But, in most of these cases, something has to be done.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: themerchant on August 20, 2017, 11:05:57 am

Quote from:  themerchant
The Hijackers were (predominately) from Saudi Arabia and Bin Laden was in Pakistan. Why was Afghanistan justified?

The train ground and safe haven for Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden, those who orchestrated the attack. The deserved every bit of what the got.

ETA: not to mention removing the Taliban. Another scourge of the Earth.

Look, I know America's hand are not clean, not by a mile. But, some of what we do is good and benefits those that live there. You just have to give their government and new military time to train and get a handle of the situation on there own before you go and pull all our troops out. Its a touchy situation, no doubt about it. But, in most of these cases, something has to be done.


Do you know who started terrorist/freedom fighters training camps in Afghanistan with the Mujahideen? Zbigniew Brzezinski.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYvO3qAlyTg   https://www.counterpunch.org/1998/01/15/how-jimmy-carter-and-i-started-the-mujahideen/

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

The Taliban still exists. Now the US has administration has a friendly administration that wasn't destroying all the heroin poppies worth billions.

US War In Afghanistan Is Fueling Global Heroin Epidemic & Enabling The Drug Trade

When the U.S. overthrew the Taliban in the wake of 9/11, it set the stage for the explosive growth of Afghanistan’s opium industry. In this episode of ‘Behind the Headline,’ host Mnar Muhawesh explains how the global war on terror created a global epidemic of heroin overdoses.

http://www.mintpressnews.com/global-war-terror-created-heroin-epidemic-us-afghanistan/218662/

just a wee bakker quote at the end.

This one thing every tyrant will tell you: nothing saves more lives than murder
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: themerchant on August 20, 2017, 11:08:08 am
I agree that anihilate these fuckers is the only way. But it is not enough, who is behind them? who has given (and is giving) them money and support? This Unholy Consult has to be destroyed too.
But some of them are like skin-spies among us and pretend to be friends, etc. How to deal with them?


LePen is irrelevant only due to the french political system, she had a bunch of voters in first and second rounds, but fortunately this is not enough. Other countries do not have these counterweights and could end in the hands of demagogs (Spain included, here we would be so retards to have some kind of imitators of venezuelan communists, lol be praised).


Scotland's parliament is set up to avoid majorities although the SNP got them cause so many people were voting for them.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Woden on August 20, 2017, 11:12:59 am
In the end the scene that Houellebecq depicts in Submission will be possible.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: themerchant on August 20, 2017, 11:19:42 am
Also to point out i'm British by birth so i fully accept the terrible things we did over centuries when we were the predominate power.

Iran seems to have been subject to a propaganda campaign as it's hardly this backwards country, they had more females in universities than most western nations till the recent Ahmadinejad era where they have started to implement "old man conserative shit"

At the start of his presidency in 2007-08, women's gains in education permeated every level, composing 44 percent of students pursuing associate degrees, 55 percent of bachelor's degree students, 43 percent of master's degree students, and a high 58 percent of students pursuing a professional doctorate

Women also dominated 6 of the 7 academic fields offered at university level, save for engineering, comprising the majority of students studying veterinary sciences, basic sciences, human sciences, medical sciences, agriculture and the arts

It moved backwards Ahmadinejad but is (far too) slowly moving back towards what it was

Iran has never went to war with anyone in centuries. Israel doesn't want any competition in the region. If Iran switch to nuclear power they can sell of much more of their oil to china and become even richer. US doesn't want China having a huge source of power and Israel don't want any competition in the region so they can continue to build illegal settlements and get rid of the Palestinians.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: themerchant on August 20, 2017, 11:22:00 am
In the end the scene that Houellebecq depicts in Submission will be possible.

Not by 2022 surely?
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Woden on August 20, 2017, 12:17:43 pm
I hope not, but for 2100, I fear
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Woden on August 20, 2017, 12:19:48 pm
Also to point out i'm British by birth so i fully accept the terrible things we did over centuries when we were the predominate power.

Iran seems to have been subject to a propaganda campaign as it's hardly this backwards country, they had more females in universities than most western nations till the recent Ahmadinejad era where they have started to implement "old man conserative shit"

At the start of his presidency in 2007-08, women's gains in education permeated every level, composing 44 percent of students pursuing associate degrees, 55 percent of bachelor's degree students, 43 percent of master's degree students, and a high 58 percent of students pursuing a professional doctorate

Women also dominated 6 of the 7 academic fields offered at university level, save for engineering, comprising the majority of students studying veterinary sciences, basic sciences, human sciences, medical sciences, agriculture and the arts

It moved backwards Ahmadinejad but is (far too) slowly moving back towards what it was

Iran has never went to war with anyone in centuries. Israel doesn't want any competition in the region. If Iran switch to nuclear power they can sell of much more of their oil to china and become even richer. US doesn't want China having a huge source of power and Israel don't want any competition in the region so they can continue to build illegal settlements and get rid of the Palestinians.

I Totally agree
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Madness on August 20, 2017, 12:36:13 pm
Again, I'm going to miss out on the contemporary activity of this thread, I think :(.

I do want to say I think the US is the worst offender (... by some margin). I'll always fall back on the research I did in '12/'13 about the world's use of surveillance/weaponized drones. The US is basically the Terminator Empire to those randoms who live under its thrall. Much less, what Wilshire and others were talking about up-thread about destabilization techniques weaponized as far back as WWII.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: MSJ on August 21, 2017, 12:18:26 am
Well, we'll just stay out of international affairs then tell me if you think the world is a better place. I find it extremely amusing. I don't claim that we don't do dirty, we do. But, we do a whole lot of good too.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: solipsisticurge on August 21, 2017, 05:41:39 am
Well, we'll just stay out of international affairs then tell me if you think the world is a better place. I find it extremely amusing. I don't claim that we don't do dirty, we do. But, we do a whole lot of good too.

...so ISIS is better than Hussein?
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: MSJ on August 21, 2017, 06:23:42 am
Quote
...so ISIS is better than Hussein?

Not at all, did I ever say so? Syria is a totally different animal with so many countries involved and half the time nobody knows who's fighting who. ISIS has integrated into the general public, hiding and shielding themselves. So, just bombing would result in loss of alot of innocent lives. A mistake I don't think anyone wants to repeat and one the military brass has taking into consideration heavily since Iraq and Afghanistan. Tensions between us and Russia could escalate to a global scale. But, I don't need to tell you any of this, your asking me dumb questions you already know the answer to. 
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: solipsisticurge on August 21, 2017, 06:57:59 am
Quote
...so ISIS is better than Hussein?

Not at all, did I ever say so? Syria is a totally different animal with so many countries involved and half the time nobody knows who's fighting who. ISIS has integrated into the general public, hiding and shielding themselves. So, just bombing would result in loss of alot of innocent lives. A mistake I don't think anyone wants to repeat and one the military brass has taking into consideration heavily since Iraq and Afghanistan. Tensions between us and Russia could escalate to a global scale. But, I don't need to tell you any of this, your asking me dumb questions you already know the answer to.

You proclaim the killing of Hussein (which directly led, amongst other causes, to ISIS' standing as a formidable regional power)  a good thing. I'm asking if you legitimately feel ousting and killing a tyrant is inherently good if the power vacuum it creates results in a worse person/group in power (ISIS kills its own "citizens" just as routinely and horrifically, and attacks outside its borders far more prevalently and without U.S. support, and is far more interested in spreading theocracy, so I judge them worse). This seems a simple example of "doing good" filtered through piss-poor comprehension of the region or its demographics resulting in a demonstrably worse situation, which is a fairly good summation of almost all U.S. military action post-WW2.

Despite 1. knowing Hussein's ouster facilitated the rise of ISIS, and 2. knowing ISIS is worse, you repeatedly refer to Hussein's ouster as an inherently good thing. I asked a rhetorical question to elicit your reasons as to why.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Woden on August 21, 2017, 07:52:46 am
In this case, removing Sadam and Gadafi from power was a mistake, because of the chaos that came after. Was it a terrible miscalculation or was the chaos the wanted effect? Anyway, lesser evil is far better than Evil itself. So it is better Kellhus than the Consult, IMHO. I'm not saying that Sadam was Kellhus, lol.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: themerchant on August 21, 2017, 08:21:03 am
Well, we'll just stay out of international affairs then tell me if you think the world is a better place. I find it extremely amusing. I don't claim that we don't do dirty, we do. But, we do a whole lot of good too.

You won't though cause the primary purpose isn't altruism it's power and control.

You should read Smedley Butler's book "war is a racket" he was a USMC Major General 2 time medal of honour winner and eventually came to realise he was fighting not for freedom or altruism but to help out large American Corporations.

Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: MSJ on August 21, 2017, 10:05:41 am
Merch, you can paint is as the evil empire, go ahead. I don't believe it. Without us WWII would of been lost and Europe wouldn't exist. Get down on your knees and give thanks to Merica' everyday of your God giving life. ;)
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: themerchant on August 21, 2017, 10:56:02 am
Merch, you can paint is as the evil empire, go ahead. I don't believe it. Without us WWII would of been lost and Europe wouldn't exist. Get down on your knees and give thanks to Merica' everyday of your God giving life. ;)

The Soviets "won" World War 2 at the cost of 25 million people, they killed 75% of enemy combatants in the war. Germany never reached Britain cause they lost the air battle(with Pilots from all over the world volunteering to help) and couldn't mount a landing as Britannia ruled the waves, we sank the Bismarck, all this was done months before America even entered the War.

American companies and banks were funding Hitler at this point (Brown's bank etc), profiteering off both sides. We just finished paying off the debt we accrued to America during that time.

In our darkest hour we turned to Canada, Australia, New Zeland, India, Nepal etc to help us fight the first 2 years of the war. Then after Russia turned in June 1941 we had a powerful ally, then when America was attacked via Pearl Harbour we got another one.

It turned out to be a collaborative war and we eventually won.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: MSJ on August 21, 2017, 11:06:16 am
Quote
You proclaim the killing of Hussein (which directly led, amongst other causes, to ISIS' standing as a formidable regional power)  a good thing. I'm asking if you legitimately feel ousting and killing a tyrant is inherently good if the power vacuum it creates results in a worse person/group in power (ISIS kills its own "citizens" just as routinely and horrifically, and attacks outside its borders far more prevalently and without U.S. support, and is far more interested in spreading theocracy, so I judge them worse). This seems a simple example of "doing good" filtered through piss-poor comprehension of the region or its demographics resulting in a demonstrably worse situation, which is a fairly good summation of almost all U.S. military action post-WW2.

Despite 1. knowing Hussein's ouster facilitated the rise of ISIS, and 2. knowing ISIS is worse, you repeatedly refer to Hussein's ouster as an inherently good thing. I asked a rhetorical question to elicit your reasons as to why.

And, I've answered this question multiple times already, so excuse my irritation. When Obama pulled out the majority of our troops after him being elected, it caused a vacuum which gave rise to ISIS. Mind you, against the wishes of our highest military officers. It was only done because that's what he ran his campaign on. If those troops weren't pulled out and we have the Iraqi government more time to stabilize and become confident in there military and police force, ISIS wouldn't be what they are today. It was a mistake, a huge one. Iraqi officials felt betrayed because of the pullout and knew and told what was going to happen. Their military wasn't trained enough or established for that matter. Thats why we've sent more troops back over to there and Afghanistan, to try and get back the territory we ceded when we pulled out. ISIS, the Taliban were licking their chops when Obama was announcing the pullout of troops, all they had to do was wait.

ETA: and you keep insisting ISIS is worse, how so? Sadaam killed millions of his own people, mass genocide by chemical weapons over decades. No difference between the two in my mind. And, as I stated above, if we didn't pullout so quickly, ISIS wouldn't be as huge as a problem as they are now.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: TLEILAXU on August 21, 2017, 12:10:47 pm
(click to show/hide)

Quote
You proclaim the killing of Hussein (which directly led, amongst other causes, to ISIS' standing as a formidable regional power)  a good thing. I'm asking if you legitimately feel ousting and killing a tyrant is inherently good if the power vacuum it creates results in a worse person/group in power (ISIS kills its own "citizens" just as routinely and horrifically, and attacks outside its borders far more prevalently and without U.S. support, and is far more interested in spreading theocracy, so I judge them worse). This seems a simple example of "doing good" filtered through piss-poor comprehension of the region or its demographics resulting in a demonstrably worse situation, which is a fairly good summation of almost all U.S. military action post-WW2.

Despite 1. knowing Hussein's ouster facilitated the rise of ISIS, and 2. knowing ISIS is worse, you repeatedly refer to Hussein's ouster as an inherently good thing. I asked a rhetorical question to elicit your reasons as to why.

And, I've answered this question multiple times already, so excuse my irritation. When Obama pulled out the majority of our troops after him being elected, it caused a vacuum which gave rise to ISIS. Mind you, against the wishes of our highest military officers. It was only done because that's what he ran his campaign on. If those troops weren't pulled out and we have the Iraqi government more time to stabilize and become confident in there military and police force, ISIS wouldn't be what they are today. It was a mistake, a huge one. Iraqi officials felt betrayed because of the pullout and knew and told what was going to happen. Their military wasn't trained enough or established for that matter. Thats why we've sent more troops back over to there and Afghanistan, to try and get back the territory we ceded when we pulled out. ISIS, the Taliban were licking their chops when Obama was announcing the pullout of troops, all they had to do was wait.

ETA: and you keep insisting ISIS is worse, how so? Sadaam killed millions of his own people, mass genocide by chemical weapons over decades. No difference between the two in my mind. And, as I stated above, if we didn't pullout so quickly, ISIS wouldn't be as huge as a problem as they are now.
Blaming it on Obama pulling troops out is too simple. ISIS would've been shut down by Assad, Russia and Iran, but that would've meant increased geopolitical influence for these horrible "freedom-hating" nations  8). Meanwhile, rich people in the Gulf states fund ISIS and other rebel group.  Truly a dilemma.

Merch, you can paint is as the evil empire, go ahead. I don't believe it. Without us WWII would of been lost and Europe wouldn't exist. Get down on your knees and give thanks to Merica' everyday of your God giving life. ;)
I'm not sure how serious you are with this, but this attitude is what makes many people in the world dislike America. Just because some interventions were morally correct (from some kind of greater good reference frame) doesn't mean we have to accept ALL of them. Likewise, the intervention in Kuwait, where Saddam grossly infringed on another nations sovereignty, was morally justified from my standpoint.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Wilshire on August 21, 2017, 12:18:35 pm
----
Edit: Mod-Wilshire says: I just had to moderate a post. Lets keep personal attacks to a minimum. Granted, its difficult for me to at once be part of the conversation and moderate it, so please call me out if I'm missing something (including if I'm doing the same thing I'm attempting to moderate against.)
----

Please correct me if I'm wrong MSJ, but it seems your stance is basically that: we, as the US, have the right to topple governments and install ones that we like, then have indefinite military occupancy enforcing Marshall Law until we can 'convince' citizens to believe in the new culture we are installing against their will?

This is the same as IS, isn't it? They are using military might to kill people that have different ideologies than them, then install military enforced occupation of capture regions to force citizens to capitulate to Shariah Law.
What's the difference? (I guess you have already answered this, so asking again will just be irritating. Let me rephrase: You feel that the US version is justified because the conditions we install are better than the ones we removed, right? I'm really just trying to get it straight in my head.)

Our belief structures, though different, aren't necessarily better. This isn't Earwa. There is no objective morality. Until the world can agree on one set of rules to play by, which clearly we haven't, then no one can claim moral high ground. So how can we know, or better yet measure, which state is better?

If we want to just live in a world where the strongest guy wins, I'm on the winning side, so honestly what do I care? With the most advanced and well funded military in the world, I'll never have to worry about losing a war. Heck, I don't even have to worry about going to war - I've got a handful of medical issues that each disqualify me individually, let alone in their sum, from going into battle.
When I see anyone from the US arguing for war, I see people who are scared and want to be in control. Leave altruism out of it, because its not real. Money and power, we take what we want and kill for everything else to stay in power.

To me, the calling card of evil is this: That Means justify Ends, that all who believe differently than you should be killed, and that Objective Morality (God) is on your side.
I see both sides believing this unto death, and both sides, imo, are equally evil. I'm guessing this is where our disagreement originates.

This post is already long enough so I'll think on it a bit more before posting again, but, what's the middle ground here? I think usually in an argument the truth is somewhere in between.

Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: H on August 21, 2017, 12:54:48 pm
[Moderator's Note: We are going to deescalate this thread, starting now.  Please pause before posting to reread what you are about to say and consider it's tone.]
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: themerchant on August 21, 2017, 01:12:11 pm
I saw MSJ comment as joking between me and him as we've known each other a bit longer. Who just happen to have different views of World War II probably down to geographical location more than anything else. I'm of course right though :D

"Merch, you can paint is as the evil empire, go ahead. I don't believe it. Without us WWII would of been lost and Europe wouldn't exist. Get down on your knees and give thanks to Merica' everyday of your God giving life. ;) "

The above to me reads as just a bit of ribbing. I've heard it from American friends as we josh with each other.

It's probably impossible to actually have an objective view of World War II anyway.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Wilshire on August 21, 2017, 01:18:26 pm
Thanks TM. I appreciate the insight.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: MSJ on August 21, 2017, 02:09:26 pm
Wilshire,

I think I've stated my stance very well. No, I don't think that any people who don't believe as me should be murdered.  I don't think I've said any such thing. I felt that the removal of Sadaam was justified purely for the reason of what he did to his own people for decades. Afghanistan because of Al-Qaeda, Bin- Laden and the Taliban.

I don't think we should occupy these countries. I think we should help their government stabilize and allow time for the military to grow strong and effective. I've stated all of this. I've stated that of course we have our own interests involved in these wars, always do.

I'm sorry if others disagree, but it's fine if they do. My post to Merch was purely a joke and thought you could tell that from the context of the post. Im entitled to my opinion as everyone else is.

Merchant, Im glad that you recognized it, for what it was. I've known you, figured you would see it as a joke. As you and I tend to have the same sense of humor.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Woden on August 21, 2017, 02:31:21 pm
Anyway if we have to choose between evils (and all governments are evil) I always want the lesser evil. But we have to identify who is that for us - and probably we have different points of view.
For me between IS and Sadam or Gadafi, the later two are the lesser evil. But Allah knows better.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Wilshire on August 21, 2017, 02:46:10 pm
Please, correct me if I err in understanding your argument.

Clearly, revolution costs lives, we must agree on that. Military conflict kills civilians and military alike. By removing a government, we had to kill thousands.

So, how is that not a tacit endorsement to kill people with a different ideology? How is that different than IS? We kill to remove a group who's ideology is different than ours, they do the same.

You disagree with my calling for the indefinite military occupation of a country, but then you say that its OK to keep tens of thousands of military personnel entrenched in their country until it thinks and acts the way we want. How is this different than IS, who keeps military control over a territory until their new government is strong and in place?

I'm really trying to figure out how you distinguish the two, because to me they are the same. Clearly to you they are different, but how? I feel I've made a clear case for why I feel they are the same, and would like to see a response to that.

If it boils down to, as I said, means justifying ends, with God on our side telling us to kill to make for a better world, then the evil we do is indistinguishable from the evil we are trying to prevent.

Can you see where I'm coming from, or is my line of thought totally obscure still?
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: MSJ on August 21, 2017, 02:48:49 pm
I agree Woden. But, my pointing out that Obama (whom I voted for, so everyone here knows) pulling out troops, against the advice of military brass is what created the vacuum for ISIS to gain a foothold and thrive. IMHO, if we would have made sure Iraq was capable of governing and defending their country before doing so, it might not of happened. And you wouldn't have to choose between those evils.

And, I'm sorry, governments are corrupt, but I don't think all are evil. Now, our current president is certainly creating tensions and a environment for our government to be evil and this country slide into ruin, I'll admit that. And, since I feel a need to defend myself at the moment, he never got my vote. And, would love to see him impeached yesterday.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Wilshire on August 21, 2017, 02:50:28 pm
Anyway if we have to choose between evils (and all governments are evil) I always want the lesser evil. But we have to identify who is that for us - and probably we have different points of view.
For me between IS and Sadam or Gadafi, the later two are the lesser evil. But Allah knows better.

I think its really important to state these things, as you just did. We all come from very different places, both geographically and family heritage. Assuming people understand our implicit meanings leads to much confusion. :)

I don't think governments are evil, just the people that misuse them. Same as my earlier conversation with H regarding religion. Government is a tool, put someone with malcontent at the helm and you'll end up with bad outcomes. Since we can't remove people from the equation,can't remove corruption, finding a true solution becomes difficult.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: MSJ on August 21, 2017, 02:54:51 pm
Quote from:  Wilshire
You disagree with my calling for the indefinite military occupation of a country, but then you say that its OK to keep tens of thousands of military personnel entrenched in their country until it thinks and acts the way we want. How is this different than IS, who keeps military control over a territory until their new government is strong and in place?

Where did I say they need to think and act like us? After a war, the country is chaos. I said to allow them time to establish a government (of their choosing) and a military to defend themselves. Thats all I've ever said.

And, let's not be naive, innocents die in all wars. But, our military has drastically changed they way they conduct war to eliminate civilian loss to a minimum. Sure, it still happens. But, it is a huge factor of what they do in terms of bombing and raids and so forth.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: H on August 21, 2017, 02:55:22 pm
I think what it really comes down to is that almost everything that foreign powers are doing in the Middle East right now is not at all fostering anything like a greater good though.

What good is fighting tyranny with no plan to replace it with something different, something better?

What we are going to the heart of is that Western powers left that area is the lurch since pre-WW2 and all anyone keeps trying to do is to functionally attempt to repair something the is structurally unsound and most probably completely unsustainable.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Wilshire on August 21, 2017, 03:07:43 pm
Quote from:  Wilshire
You disagree with my calling for the indefinite military occupation of a country, but then you say that its OK to keep tens of thousands of military personnel entrenched in their country until it thinks and acts the way we want. How is this different than IS, who keeps military control over a territory until their new government is strong and in place?

Where did I say they need to think and act like us? After a war, the country is chaos. I said to allow them time to establish a government (of their choosing) and a military to defend themselves. Thats all I've ever said.

And, let's not be naive, innocents die in all wars. But, our military has drastically changed they way they conduct war to eliminate civilian loss to a minimum. Sure, it still happens. But, it is a huge factor of what they do in terms of bombing and raids and so forth.

Well, isn't installing a government that does our bidding the same as installing people that have similar ideologies as us? It certainly seems like it is, to me at least. How is that different?

And then, the reason we needed to keep a military there at all was because there was a difference in opinion on who should be in charge. We ostensibly needed to stick around until the people largely agreed that the leaders we installed for them were 'what they wanted' - which to me is the same as making people think like us.

I feel like my entire post has been dismissed because you don't like how I phrased one sentence. At this point, what can I say to warrant a response rather than a total dismissal?

So I'll just ask the same question:
I'm really trying to figure out how you distinguish the two, because to me they are the same. Clearly to you they are different, but how?

If it boils down to, as I said, means justifying ends, with God on our side telling us to kill to make for a better world, then the evil we do is indistinguishable from the evil we are trying to prevent.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: pail on August 21, 2017, 03:25:14 pm
Wilshire, it sounds like you're arguing against all non-defensive military interventions. To clarify your position, would this apply in all cases? For example, do you agree with the Allies not intervening at Auschwitz despite the requests of the Jewish Agency? Would you still have choosen not to intervene even if we'd had access to precision bombing technology at the time that would have allowed us to target specific infrastructure with minimal civilian casualties?
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Woden on August 21, 2017, 03:29:42 pm
I think that all the political systems have their flaws and no one is perfect, even democracy is terribly flawed.
I suggest the reading of the essay of J. Brennan 'Against democracy' that proposes another system, epistocracy.
I don't agree with all its points of view and proposals but I find it quite interesting.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Wilshire on August 21, 2017, 03:57:45 pm
Wilshire, it sounds like you're arguing against all non-defensive military interventions. To clarify your position, would this apply in all cases? For example, do you agree with the Allies not intervening at Auschwitz despite the requests of the Jewish Agency? Would you still have choosen not to intervene even if we'd had access to precision bombing technology at the time that would have allowed us to target specific infrastructure with minimal civilian casualties?

I don't think I've stated one way or another. All I'm trying to say is that I just don't see a moral high ground here.

We don't even need to muddy the waters with 'right' and 'wrong' to justify actions. Intervening in WWII could just as easily be construed as an economic decision. It lifted us out of a depression. We got to ensure governments that agreed with our ideology were in place. We got to run up huge wartime tabs on our ally nations that are still being paid off. By all economic measures, it was a super great move.

But, honestly, if the economics weren't in our favor, I don't think the US would have intervened, and I'd guess we'd all be sitting here talking about how its a good thing we didn't waste our time and money on WWII and using that to justify not getting involved with what's going on today. How 'right' we were to not get involved, because that's how we justify morality - ad hoc.

So to directly answer your question, anything other than non-defensive military action is difficult to morally justify.
I believe that the US entered WWII because of economic reasons, and because we were mad/scared about Pearl Harbor, not for any morally justified reasons.

We can't go back and fight pretend WWII battles with 2017 weapons so I don't think my opinion there matters at all. Why not use hypothetically perfect weapons that could target specific persons without any collateral damage.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: pail on August 21, 2017, 04:01:34 pm
Intervening in WWII could just as easily be construed as an economic decision.

[...]

But, honestly, if the economics weren't in our favor, I don't think the US would have intervened

We in fact did not intervene in the case I was referencing.

I'd still like to know your answer - I did intentionally engineer the case and attempt to stack the deck against you, but I think it would help clarify your position.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Wilshire on August 21, 2017, 04:07:39 pm
Didn't I answer you then? A thought experiment where morality is the only factor doesn't really have any value.

Lets make a clearer one:
If you could kill someone that was about to kill someone, would you be morally justified.

edit: *clearer* one. I don't think any answer to this question really applies to the greater conversation here (because things are so much more complex than that). And, obviously, now I'm afraid to get backed into a corner so I don't want to answer lol.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: pail on August 21, 2017, 04:24:10 pm
You're tough to corner, Wilshire - almost as hard as asking questions of Bakker! If your position is that non-defensive military intervention is never justified even to prevent a genocide, I can at least credit you with being consistent in your position (even if I don't agree with it!). But if you were to concede that it could be justified in some cases, then in my point of view it makes the absolutist moral relativism argument fall apart - as it would be conceding that in some cases it's okay to use violence to impose our values (genocide is bad) on another society with different values (some genocides are good). From that point we would just be debating a matter of degrees: in other words, just how bad a situation would need to be and how costly the intervention would be in order to justify intervention. And making those judgments of "how bad" and "how costly" really mean judging precisely how far the situation and the cost of intervention deviate from our values. And once you're weighing whether an intervention is justified based on that, you've already abandoned the absolutist moral relativism framework.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Wilshire on August 21, 2017, 04:35:12 pm
Its more a question of, what does the world agree is right and what does it/"we" justify as wrong. Or at least, a majority of people?

In the case of genocide, I think you'd not likely find a majority of people that would say genocide should be allowed.

But yes, it does eventually boil down to 'how far is to far', but to me that doesn't need to be a strictly moral argument. Its just the rules of engagement, just like everything else.

The issue becomes when nobody agrees on what rules to play by. Who then is 'right'? I dislike the 'might makes right' argument, which is mostly what I have seen brought up here, but maybe I'm misreading.


---
edit, btw pail, thinking on it, I swear someone put together a similar question some time ago on this forum. Maybe it was you? Perhaps I'm just cnaiur ;)
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: pail on August 21, 2017, 04:59:22 pm
Its more a question of, what does the world agree is right and what does it/"we" justify as wrong. Or at least, a majority of people?

In the case of genocide, I think you'd not likely find a majority of people that would say genocide should be allowed.

So, would international law or sanctions imposed by the UN qualify as the world agreeing on something? Is foreign intervention on the table when, for example, Saddam, who carried out the Kurdish genocide, continues to violate sanctions imposed by the UN? Or when Assad employs chemical weapons, a war crime that nearly the entire world, including Assad's government, has signed treaties against using?

Note: I'm not actually taking a position on whether the US should have invaded Iraq again or that Obama should have declared war on Assad. (Gee, it sure is easier to sit here putting pressure on Wilshire's position than actually taking a position myself, isn't it?  ;) )
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: H on August 21, 2017, 04:59:52 pm
Its more a question of, what does the world agree is right and what does it/"we" justify as wrong. Or at least, a majority of people?

In the case of genocide, I think you'd not likely find a majority of people that would say genocide should be allowed.

This type of justification is problematic to me.  Let's pretend there is a country where 51% of the people support genocide.  Is it then justified?  That seems awfully dangerous.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Wilshire on August 21, 2017, 05:47:01 pm
Its more a question of, what does the world agree is right and what does it/"we" justify as wrong. Or at least, a majority of people?

In the case of genocide, I think you'd not likely find a majority of people that would say genocide should be allowed.

This type of justification is problematic to me.  Let's pretend there is a country where 51% of the people support genocide.  Is it then justified?  That seems awfully dangerous.

Who gets to decide that it isn't, though? Just because you/I don't like it doesn't make it wrong, unfortunately.

But I did say 'world' specifically for that reason.

Note: I'm not actually taking a position on whether the US should have invaded Iraq again or that Obama should have declared war on Assad. (Gee, it sure is easier to sit here putting pressure on Wilshire's position than actually taking a position myself, isn't it?  ;) )
It sure is. I noticed you dodged my question(s) :P .

So, would international law or sanctions imposed by the UN qualify as the world agreeing on something?

For the sake of argument, I imagine this is the best metric we have. Its not like we really have any other system in place to seek international agreement. Ostensibly, each leader represents its nation entirely - though that does mean that Trump is America for all international purposes. Obviously, its a flawed system.

Is foreign intervention on the table when, for example, Saddam, who carried out the Kurdish genocide, continues to violate sanctions imposed by the UN? Or when Assad employs chemical weapons, a war crime that nearly the entire world, including Assad's government, has signed treaties against using?

I guess so.
Democracy is currently the gold standard for 'freedom', isn't it?

With a system so flawed, we aren't anywhere close to a real solution. Is the UN the best we have? Probably. But its as corruptible as any other system we've got.

All I'm pointing out is the no one has moral high ground because no one really agrees on what morality is. If the UN decides that we need to genocide people X because they believe Y, well, I guess that's the world we live in. We play by the rules we create.

But we create them. We can't blame it on God or some other magical belief faeries. At least people can be held accountable - unlike Gods and scriptures.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: H on August 21, 2017, 06:28:50 pm
Who gets to decide that it isn't, though? Just because you/I don't like it doesn't make it wrong, unfortunately.

But I did say 'world' specifically for that reason.

But that's just the thing, the 49% disagrees.  So, while you or I can't say one side is right or wrong, neither can either side.

So, why then can we declare it justified?  Or unjustified?
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Wilshire on August 21, 2017, 06:36:44 pm
Who gets to decide that it isn't, though? Just because you/I don't like it doesn't make it wrong, unfortunately.

But I did say 'world' specifically for that reason.

But that's just the thing, the 49% disagrees.  So, while you or I can't say one side is right or wrong, neither can either side.

So, why then can we declare it justified?  Or unjustified?
Because that's the measure we are using as defined in this scenario - majority rules. For me, I'd rather use that, than Gods and scripture, but I'm not making an argument about morality here.

I'd love for their to be a better system as this is clearly non-ideal.

We can choose to use another word for it, but I think the meaning is plenty clear.
"That's the way the popular vote was cast" instead of 'justified'.
Same as 'thats what god told me to do' instead of 'holy', or 'right'. Just words - semantics - at that point.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: H on August 21, 2017, 06:50:59 pm
Because that's the measure we are using as defined in this scenario - majority rules. For me, I'd rather use that, than Gods and scripture, but I'm not making an argument about morality here.

I'd love for their to be a better system as this is clearly non-ideal.

We can choose to use another word for it, but I think the meaning is plenty clear.
"That's the way the popular vote was cast" instead of 'justified'.
Same as 'thats what god told me to do' instead of 'holy', or 'right'. Just words - semantics - at that point.

Well, yeah, that's my point.  I understand you like that system better, but it really is as arbitrary as God, a god, or flipping a coin, really.  But almost no one wants a fully fact-based system, because we want things as we desire them to be, not necessarily how they actually are.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Wilshire on August 21, 2017, 06:59:17 pm
A person and their feels are as arbitrary as pointing to a line in a book, I agree. Something must be chosen to measure with and against though. Propose a solution?

But again, people can be held accountable, unlike Gods, or as you brought up, a coin toss. To me this makes for an important distinction, though I gather you disagree. Propose a better system then, as clearly you dislike the one the pail devised.

Also, can you explain how flipping a coin appears to be the same, to you, as asking a large population to vote for something and then abiding by that group decision?
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: pail on August 21, 2017, 07:03:31 pm
the one the pail devised.

Disclaimer: This is not the pail's personal system. The pail was merely suggesting it as potentially satisfying Wilshire's criteria of "the world agreeing."
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: H on August 21, 2017, 07:07:55 pm
A person and their feels are as arbitrary as pointing to a line in a book, I agree. Something must be chosen to measure with and against though. Propose a solution?

But again, people can be held accountable, unlike Gods, or as you brought up, a coin toss. To me this makes for an important distinction, though I gather you disagree. Propose a better system then, as clearly you dislike the one the pail devised.

Also, can you explain how flipping a coin appears to be the same, to you, as asking a large population to vote for something and then abiding by that group decision?

Because there is no rationality behind simply asking people something.  Yeah, I guess I am something of a "rationalist" which is ultimately going to be a failure, but I think it is still an improvement on simply soliciting (what will inevitably be) biased opinions.  I think much of the "group-think" we see today is a direct result of this sort of idea that rationality will be born out of mass opinions.

Lots of people can be mislead.  In fact, it is probably easier to mislead massive groups of people, rather than any one individual.  So, what you'll get is not the "best" idea, but the one that is most prone to appeal to our primitive monkey brains.  So we get the idea that is most prone to replicating itself.  In other words, we are ruled by memes, not anything often can be tied to truth or reason.

I don't want to be lead by the meme of the month, is what it comes down to really.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: MSJ on August 21, 2017, 07:15:05 pm
Quote
I'm really trying to figure out how you distinguish the two, because to me they are the same. Clearly to you they are different, but how? I feel I've made a clear case for why I feel they are the same, and would like to see a response to that.

If it boils down to, as I said, means justifying ends, with God on our side telling us to kill to make for a better world, then the evil we do is indistinguishable from the evil we are trying to prevent.

Can you see where I'm coming from, or is my line of thought totally obscure still?

I guess there is no way to distinguish between the two other than looking at the reactions of said government when we pulled out. I remember Iraqi officials saying they wasn't ready, felt abandoned. Lots of soldiers dropped their guns and left their posts(Iraqi), which led to ISIS directly taking over a huge portion of Iraq. To me, the government of Iraq at least, felt they still needed our help and guidance.

I don't think God was on our side when we entered those wars. Afghanistan was a direct reaction to an act of war on America. Same situation there afterwards. Same reaction by their government when we pulled out the majority of our troops.

I understand your line of thought. But, where not making acts of war in the name of Jesus and then trying to convert them to Christianity. But, that's exactly what ISIS and other extremist groups are doing and fighting for.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Wilshire on August 21, 2017, 07:43:05 pm
I don't want to be lead by the meme of the month, is what it comes down to really.

Neither do I. I'm firmly belive that any system of government is just as good as the rest, in terms of potential to do good. With an incorruptible leader, a dictatorship works out just as well as democracy.

I dislike 'people' as a whole, just as must as the next guy. Unfortunately, its difficult to remove us from this equation.

I guess there is no way to distinguish between the two other than looking at the reactions of said government when we pulled out. I remember Iraqi officials saying they wasn't ready, felt abandoned. Lots of soldiers dropped their guns and left their posts(Iraqi), which led to ISIS directly taking over a huge portion of Iraq. To me, the government of Iraq at least, felt they still needed our help and guidance.

I don't think God was on our side when we entered those wars. Afghanistan was a direct reaction to an act of war on America. Same situation there afterwards. Same reaction by their government when we pulled out the majority of our troops.

That's good enough to me. I don't have any further badgering questions.

I understand your line of thought. But, where not making acts of war in the name of Jesus and then trying to convert them to Christianity. But, that's exactly what ISIS and other extremist groups are doing and fighting for.

I feel that fighting in the name of Freedom and converting them to Democracy seems about the same as Deity/Religion. This is probably where we disagree most, but I'm not sure what to do about that.  :)

Its difficult for me to say whether or not the people there wanted the outcome they ended up with, and whether they feel like they are better off now, years later. And, without that information, difficult for me to suggest whether or not we should do it again.

I remember years of 'the world' chiding us for sticking our hands in places we don't belong, then years (now) of 'the world' asking us to raise arms with them again. Right now, I think the world should try and figure this one out without the US to be the scapegoat. Let the EU spend 50% of its GDP on weapons, military training, and fighting a decades long war. We literally just finished doing that, lets take a break. EU has the same economic might as we do, and probably a similar military if they added it together, if not now then if they spent the same kind of money we do.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: MSJ on August 21, 2017, 09:53:26 pm
Quote
I feel that fighting in the name of Freedom and converting them to Democracy seems about the same as Deity/Religion. This is probably where we disagree most, but I'm not sure what to do about that.  :)

Well, I certainly agree that Democracy isn't for everyone or every nation. But, I can remember initially seeing the joy of liberation of tyranny in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't know what the right type of government for each is. I believe Iraq opted to have a Parliament of sorts, where all the ethnic groups had a say. And, I remember watching and reading things were alot people felt it a huge improvement over Sadaam. Unfortunately, it looks like ISIS has disrupted there government making any gains at the moment to improve. Afghanistan seems to be in a little better place. In terms of government and a military that will fight back. And good for them.

Quote
I remember years of 'the world' chiding us for sticking our hands in places we don't belong, then years (now) of 'the world' asking us to raise arms with them again. Right now, I think the world should try and figure this one out without the US to be the scapegoat. Let the EU spend 50% of its GDP on weapons, military training, and fighting a decades long war. We literally just finished doing that, lets take a break. EU has the same economic might as we do, and probably a similar military if they added it together, if not now then if they spent the same kind of money we do.

And, therein lies the problem. We are literally damned if we do and damned if we don't. And, you know full well that the rest of the world will do shit without us. Hell, during Afghanistan, the UK was the only one to truly stand by us. Yea, other countries sent troops...100 or so. The World wants us to deal with problems so they don't have to, and all the while bitching and moaning about how we do it. Lose-lose.

I'm not delusional. I know even in Afghanistan, a war justified fully by harbori g Al-Qaeda and Bin-Laden, that we gain from war. Its a money machine and in the case of Afghanistan I'd venture to say it's why America has an opiate epidemic.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: TLEILAXU on August 21, 2017, 10:57:20 pm
I remember years of 'the world' chiding us for sticking our hands in places we don't belong, then years (now) of 'the world' asking us to raise arms with them again. Right now, I think the world should try and figure this one out without the US to be the scapegoat. Let the EU spend 50% of its GDP on weapons, military training, and fighting a decades long war. We literally just finished doing that, lets take a break. EU has the same economic might as we do, and probably a similar military if they added it together, if not now then if they spent the same kind of money we do.
Who's the world in this case? I personally wish ISIS would be left to the Syrian army, Russia and shia militias. I just want stability, I don't really care if Iran gets increased geopolitical interest.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: MSJ on August 21, 2017, 11:56:28 pm
Quote
= tleilaxu]Who's the world in this case? I personally wish ISIS would be left to the Syrian army, Russia and shia militias. I just want stability, I don't really care if Iran gets increased geopolitical interest.

So your cool with the use of chemical weapons on the people of Syria as long as it leads to stability?
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: TLEILAXU on August 22, 2017, 01:15:30 am
I'm not really cool with chemical weapons, but then again I don't see a huge difference between dying by such means and dying by a missile strike.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: themerchant on August 22, 2017, 03:16:37 am
Chemical weapons weren't used by the regime.

Prof Theodore Postol of MIT-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Postol

has stated after analyzing the data that it couldn't have come from the Syrian Regime. It's war propaganda.

With Richard Lloyd, an expert in warhead design at Tesla Laboratories, Postol has written about the 2013 Ghouta chemical attack.[32][33][34] Together they believe they found a number of items to be inconsistent with the US government's claims about the incident.[35][32][36]

Postol defended Maram Susli regarding her analysis of the Ghouta attack and against accusations of involvement in terrorism.[37]

Postol has also criticized the unclassified intelligence assessment released by the Trump White House blaming the air forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for the April 2017 Khan Shaykhun chemical attack.[38][39] Based on his own analysis of the photographic evidence, Postol has argued that the chemical attack was not an air raid, but conducted from the ground using a multiple rocket launcher, most probably a 122mm artillery rocket tube filled with a chemical agent and detonated by an explosive charge laid on top of it.[40][41][42]

Postol has argued that none of the forensic evidence in the New York Times video[43][44] and a follow-on Times news article[45] on the alleged nerve agent attack in Khan Sheikhoun on April 4, 2017 supports the conclusions reported by the New York Times.[46]


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/29/world/middleeast/new-study-refines-view-of-sarin-attack-in-syria.html

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/syria/Lloyd_warhead.pdf?ref=middleeast

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1006045/possible-implications-of-bad-intelligence.pdf
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: solipsisticurge on August 22, 2017, 06:51:26 am

And, I've answered this question multiple times already, so excuse my irritation. When Obama pulled out the majority of our troops after him being elected, it caused a vacuum which gave rise to ISIS. Mind you, against the wishes of our highest military officers. It was only done because that's what he ran his campaign on. If those troops weren't pulled out and we have the Iraqi government more time to stabilize and become confident in there military and police force, ISIS wouldn't be what they are today. It was a mistake, a huge one. Iraqi officials felt betrayed because of the pullout and knew and told what was going to happen. Their military wasn't trained enough or established for that matter. Thats why we've sent more troops back over to there and Afghanistan, to try and get back the territory we ceded when we pulled out. ISIS, the Taliban were licking their chops when Obama was announcing the pullout of troops, all they had to do was wait.

ETA: and you keep insisting ISIS is worse, how so? Sadaam killed millions of his own people, mass genocide by chemical weapons over decades. No difference between the two in my mind. And, as I stated above, if we didn't pullout so quickly, ISIS wouldn't be as huge as a problem as they are now.

Fair enough. I disagree with the troop withdrawal leading directly to ISIS; I feel they were inevitable once Hussein was ousted, and our presence merely slowed, not halted, their inception. One thing about Hussein - though his methods were brutal and abhorrent, he was spectacularly good at keeping the religious and cultural tensions within Iraq from boiling over. In his absence, decades-suppressed animosity stretching back centuries was bound to flare up. Whether or not they were inevitable is largely a matter of opinion at this point, though, so we'll have to reconcile ourselves to alternate camps in the future alternative history forum wars.

As to ISIS being worse, my reasons for believing so are their fundamentalist religious doctrine (Hussein was largely a secular ruler), and their much larger tendency toward attacking outside their own borders. Hussein was no saint in this regard either, but didn't have the entire western world and middle east in fear over his next move. Again, a matter of opinion, largely.

My overriding opinion, on this and other post-WW2 military interventions by America, is that they cause more harm than good in the long run. Not because America is inherently evil, but just because culture and politics are insanely complicated, especially in regions of the world which have been pressure points for centuries on, and short-term interests and cultural bias tend to overwhelm long-term strategic thinking in foreign military action (especially when economic incentives take the wheel). We can mean the best, but when we prioritize our economic agenda and demand the situation be, above all else, convenient and easily comprehended, we take embers which have been smoldering for generations and create bonfires of international catastrophe.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: solipsisticurge on August 22, 2017, 06:58:16 am
Its more a question of, what does the world agree is right and what does it/"we" justify as wrong. Or at least, a majority of people?

Why do we we fundamentally concern ourselves with what's agreed? Most people are idiots. ;)

All morality is subjective. Democratically elected morality isn't more objectively true, just more popular. We give the people's/world's consensus weight because we, the products of some form of democracy or another, are conditioned to find merit in that which adheres to the system we are ensconced in.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: MSJ on August 22, 2017, 03:05:21 pm
Quote
My overriding opinion, on this and other post-WW2 military interventions by America, is that they cause more harm than good in the long run. Not because America is inherently evil, but just because culture and politics are insanely complicated, especially in regions of the world which have been pressure points for centuries on, and short-term interests and cultural bias tend to overwhelm long-term strategic thinking in foreign military action (especially when economic incentives take the wheel). We can mean the best, but when we prioritize our economic agenda and demand the situation be, above all else, convenient and easily comprehended, we take embers which have been smoldering for generations and create bonfires of international catastrophe.

I agree largely with this also, yet, when the call for war comes, what are you to do? As, I think Wilshire said, I myself would also love for the rest of the world to take on more responsibility. Rather, than looking across the Atlantic and expecting us to solve the problems. They condemn us for doing nothing and then condemn us when we do. What gives?
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Wilshire on August 22, 2017, 05:11:32 pm
Its more a question of, what does the world agree is right and what does it/"we" justify as wrong. Or at least, a majority of people?

Why do we we fundamentally concern ourselves with what's agreed? Most people are idiots. ;)

All morality is subjective. Democratically elected morality isn't more objectively true, just more popular. We give the people's/world's consensus weight because we, the products of some form of democracy or another, are conditioned to find merit in that which adheres to the system we are ensconced in.

I agree. But again, its a system that holds itself accountable, generally. When 'we' decide it, we should only have ourselves to blame. IMO, better to be able to punish those making poor decisions compared to decisions coming down from above (heaven, dictators, religious leaders, party selected 'democratic' demagogues, etc.).

Again, how do you remove people from the equation?

For the record, I think democracy has done a mediocre job in recent years (recent years being as far back as I have been paying attention). The system we have has been thoroughly hacked, and is functionally meaningless. I don't think giving a bunch of barely literate people, brainwashed by their chosen propaganda channels (or in today's vernacular "echo chambers"), control of the most powerful nation in the world is a good idea. The idea that everyone has a 'right' to vote is totally absurd to me.

But I have no fix for this system either. I'd love to hear suggestions though.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: themerchant on August 22, 2017, 05:51:21 pm
As Winston Churchil said: The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Hiro on August 22, 2017, 07:07:53 pm
As Winston Churchil said: The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

Another one by Winston Churchill, although with an unknown reference:

Quote
Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: MSJ on August 22, 2017, 07:12:06 pm
Domocracy is by no means perfect, as an American, at this moment, any sane half-educated person can tell you. But, not to veer to far off topic, the Left has been asking for this. The white-male. In America has been increasingly ignored and the views and feelings not taking into consideration. Trump isn't at all what a president should be, but no one can say he's dumb. He new this about the white -male being ignored and he chise to not ignore them and they came out in droves and put him in office.

Whats better than democracy, though? A king ruling over America and we're all just his loyal subjects and pay our taxes and praise him? Nah. The simple fact is there is no perfect system. And Wilshire, i think it's a very weird statement that you think that everyone should not have the right to vote. Who do you suggest has that right? Those with 4 year degrees? Count me out. Thanks for taking that away from me. Just because I don't have college education, doesn't mean I'm not educated and try to stay up with current topics. As an American, everyone has the right to vote and should be protected. Just cause someone is not educated to your liking, doesn't mean they don't have issues they hold dear to their heart. I certainly don't want just the "elite" voting. As much as I hate the President Trump is our president, it gives me faith in the Democratic process. That when voices who have not been heard and ignored, rally and come out and vote the can change history. Just this time, in the wrong fucking way, I admit.

I'm scared as an American. After Charlottesville, President Trump should have condemned the Neo-Nazi's. Instead, he weaved around it, so as to not lose any votes for his next term. Trump isn't about a better America, he's about Trump. I hope and pray they find a way to impeach him, I truly do. But, is the VP any better? I don't think so. So, let's hold out hope we can make it another 3 and 1/2 years without WWIII or a Civil War. And, I can guarantee that Trump will not be back in office. We will see the ones he's ignored and ostracized come forth and vote to remove his dumbass. I have faith in that.

I remember saying on this very forum, that while I didn't vote for Trump, that maybe, just maybe he would do some good. Get the corruption out of D.C., not was I wrong. He's a megalomaniac that is only concerned about himself, and thats dangerous. I condemn what happened in Charlottesville, I texted families and friends of mine (Afican-American) that we need to stand together, don't let this year us apart. Its hard for them. There very scared, to say the least that our president wouldn't condemn the actions of these terrorists and that's what they are. I would stand by the Left in this instance, without a doubt. But, the Left seems to ignore another threat, Islamic extremism and the threat the pose. And, quite frankly, I am sick and tired of the political correctness in this country. Why can't we just say things are what they are. We can all see it. Is all of Islam and, no. But, we as a nation need to take both the alt-right and Islamic extremism very seriously and quit parsing words in order to not offend someone. There comes a time that when it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a fucking duck, man. I just think people need to grow some balls, if not, this country is dire straights that might be the ruin of it. Sorry for my rant. Just needed to get it off my chest.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Woden on August 22, 2017, 08:07:31 pm
As I said before, why not epistocracy?

Read Brennan "Against democracy".
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: MSJ on August 22, 2017, 08:15:11 pm
Woden, whats epistocracy? I'm sure I can look it up, by what makes you prefer it?

ETA: so basically voters in Democracy are not informed enough. Well, isnt that the responsibility of each voter? The thing is, is that the majority of people when voting only care about 1, maybe 2 issues at the most. The rest means nothing to them, even if educated on it.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: TLEILAXU on August 23, 2017, 01:47:15 am
We need a soft Dûnyain system. Meritocratic, but instead of brutal eugenics we just softly eliminate genetic diseases in new generations. Also, laissez-faire capitalists will be sent to conversion camps.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Woden on August 23, 2017, 06:49:28 am
Woden, whats epistocracy? I'm sure I can look it up, by what makes you prefer it?

ETA: so basically voters in Democracy are not informed enough. Well, isnt that the responsibility of each voter? The thing is, is that the majority of people when voting only care about 1, maybe 2 issues at the most. The rest means nothing to them, even if educated on it.

Epistocracy is the government of the learned. Something like the platonic government of the philosophers.
Brennan proposes different forms of correcting the flawed democracy, like restraining the right to vote to the people with education, etc.
The book is a good one, with interesting points.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Woden on August 23, 2017, 06:51:25 am
We need a soft Dûnyain system. Meritocratic, but instead of brutal eugenics we just softly eliminate genetic diseases in new generations. Also, laissez-faire capitalists will be sent to conversion camps.

I like it. The liberals will call it fascist and the reptilian capitalists communist but I don't really care.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Hiro on August 23, 2017, 01:26:45 pm
This is a loaded thread, and I hate to just leave a comment, like a troll, and not return for a while. But I'm still swamped in work. So the reason for this comment is that I've been thinking about the views on morality that were presented in this thread. They surprise me a little bit. Although, armchair philosophers that we are here, maybe not entirely.

Briefly, I think the idea of morality as something relative is fundamentally wrong. For a couple of reasons:

- (Straw man, but bear with me:) People who don't like moralizing view it as something divorced from their own concerns. I mean to say that I'm very confident that as soon as one's own life is at stake, of your own wife or daughter is raped and killed, one has no problem with morality, moralizing and clear moral choices. The question therefore is, why can't you apply that personal stake to others as well? Which is succinctly expressed in various religions as 'do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself' (paraphrasing a bit here).

- The reason that morality is not relative and can be based on something common to all is that all of us human beings share something upon which a shared sense of morality can, and I believe should, be based: the dignity of our own life and that of others. Hard to see at times, easily taken for granted, but this whole existence and our ability to even debate is presupposes our being alive. This seems to get lost often, however, life is primary in the beginning, in the middle and in the end.

- Both of these points lead to the recognition that our own life and that of others are not separate. Therefore, a basis for morality being relative is tenuous.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Wilshire on August 23, 2017, 02:22:02 pm
I mean to say that I'm very confident that as soon as one's own life is at stake, of your own wife or daughter is raped and killed, one has no problem with morality, moralizing and clear moral choices.
...
The question therefore is, why can't you apply that personal stake to others as well? Which is succinctly expressed in various religions as 'do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself' (paraphrasing a bit here).
...
the dignity of our own life and that of others.
...

- Both of these points lead to the recognition that our own life and that of others are not separate. Therefore, a basis for morality being relative is tenuous.

Defending yourself doesn't make it moral: ie, Hitler defended himself until he gave up. Does that justify his war because he knew if he lost that he'd be killed? I don't think it does.

Defending another doesn't make it moral: All war could be justified as defending your compatriots against the evil invaders.

I think people hold their own lives in high regard, but not those of others. See: war, or any other act of violence.

So, imo, your points point out only the disfunction of beliving in some type of objective morality: that self preservation is the only thing that 'morality' ever leads to. I'd rather not live in a world where "I" am the only thing that matters, justified by each persons personal sense of 'what is right'. There isn't objective morality that I've seen - I think if there was, then we'd all agree on it, certainly after thinking about it for 2000+ years.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: MSJ on August 23, 2017, 05:07:17 pm
Quote
Epistocracy is the government of the learned. Something like the platonic government of the philosophers.
Brennan proposes different forms of correcting the flawed democracy, like restraining the right to vote to the people with education, etc.
The book is a good one, with interesting points.

Eh, yea, I have a ton a problems with this. One, if you look across the country today, for the most part, our Uni's and colleges are all run by liberals who are so far left their about ready to fall in the Pacific. Two, for many, its not very easy to just go and get a education. We have a problem with poverty in this country and it's a viscous cycle to break from. And, just because you haven't spent ten years in your local Uni pondering the ways of the world, doesn't mean your voice doesn't count. I can't get down with that.

There is no perfect system. But, I'll be damned if I want one where a select "elite" few are the only ones with a say. I'm not uneducated, have a 2 year degree and more schooling all the time through work. But, for those without the resources or chance to become more educated, I would still want their voice to count. They have issues that are dear to their heart.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Wilshire on August 23, 2017, 05:34:34 pm
As I said before, why not epistocracy?

Read Brennan "Against democracy".
Woden, whats epistocracy? I'm sure I can look it up, by what makes you prefer it?

ETA: so basically voters in Democracy are not informed enough. Well, isnt that the responsibility of each voter? The thing is, is that the majority of people when voting only care about 1, maybe 2 issues at the most. The rest means nothing to them, even if educated on it.

Epistocracy is the government of the learned. Something like the platonic government of the philosophers.
Brennan proposes different forms of correcting the flawed democracy, like restraining the right to vote to the people with education, etc.
The book is a good one, with interesting points.

Ah, very interesting.

We need a soft Dûnyain system. Meritocratic, but instead of brutal eugenics we just softly eliminate genetic diseases in new generations. Also, laissez-faire capitalists will be sent to conversion camps.

We need a soft Dûnyain system. Meritocratic, but instead of brutal eugenics we just softly eliminate genetic diseases in new generations. Also, laissez-faire capitalists will be sent to conversion camps.

I like it. The liberals will call it fascist and the reptilian capitalists communist but I don't really care.

Wasn't this something like what happened in Atlas Shrugged? I never read it, so sorry for the reference.

I like it ;) . Now just to get these things out there and get rid of our currently lame systems. How do we go about that lol? I don't suppose violent coups are on the table...
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: MSJ on August 23, 2017, 05:57:34 pm
Quote from:  Wilshire
I like it ;) . Now just to get these things out there and get rid of our currently lame systems. How do we go about that lol? I don't suppose violent coups are on the table...

For arguments sake, of this system was put in place, who would be these all-knowing intellectuals that would save America from ruin? Would they be diverse? Would the represent those from all walks of life? To me, and maybe I don't get the complete idea of this system, but it would just be a few making decisions for the masses. I think we fought a war a couple centuries ago to get away from that type of thing.

I think the election of Trump has made people question democracy. I never heard any of this when Obama was elected, it was praised then. That even a one of a minority who was enslaved and just began to get equal rights decades ago, could still reach the highest office in this nation. I was proud of that. Proud that my vote counted to get that man in office. While, I don't agree with all that he did, I think overall he did just fine. And, it was a great example of why democracy is so great. Flip to 8 years later. A maglomanical, egotistic businessman was smart enough to play in the hate of so many for the past 8 years. Spoke to the ones who have been ignored (I don't feel this way, that's just the gist of it), and a man who should be nowhere near the oval office is our President. It sucks man, it does. But, it's the same system that got Obama in and nobody was complaining about democracy then.

And, this is what Trump is doing to us. He is having us question our own system, values and beliefs. I for one, won't buy into it. I think the system is fine. Just the Democratic party, who has been ignoring the white middle-class man for a decade or two now, got what they deserved. West Virginia has always been Democratic. Because, the party always looked out for the poor, to middle-class persons. But, over the years, the forgot about them. Gun control, LGBTQ+, and other issues were all you heard about from that party. While I value those issues and some a very important to me, their decision to ignore a huge part of their constituents, blew up in their face. And here we are. Because, a man who shouldn't be the President is, and now we're questioning the system which has made this country great, and gave everyone a voice.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: TLEILAXU on August 23, 2017, 06:21:13 pm
To me, and maybe I don't get the complete idea of this system, but it would just be a few making decisions for the masses. I think we fought a war a couple centuries ago to get away from that type of thing.
That's pretty much what democracy is though, except the ones making the decisions seem to more often than not be predatory power-seekers instead of people genuinely seeking the long-term success and proliferation of humans. The opinions of the masses are worthless when you can engineer narratives that have no basis in real world fact, but are only there to feed the narrative. The problem with not having democracy is that all autocratic governments to date have been nepotistic and corrupt.
Imagine having something like an Ark though, an AI that determines how things work. That might ironically be better for us.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Woden on August 23, 2017, 07:03:37 pm
Quote
Epistocracy is the government of the learned. Something like the platonic government of the philosophers.
Brennan proposes different forms of correcting the flawed democracy, like restraining the right to vote to the people with education, etc.
The book is a good one, with interesting points.

Eh, yea, I have a ton a problems with this. One, if you look across the country today, for the most part, our Uni's and colleges are all run by liberals who are so far left their about ready to fall in the Pacific. Two, for many, its not very easy to just go and get a education. We have a problem with poverty in this country and it's a viscous cycle to break from. And, just because you haven't spent ten years in your local Uni pondering the ways of the world, doesn't mean your voice doesn't count. I can't get down with that.

There is no perfect system. But, I'll be damned if I want one where a select "elite" few are the only ones with a say. I'm not uneducated, have a 2 year degree and more schooling all the time through work. But, for those without the resources or chance to become more educated, I would still want their voice to count. They have issues that are dear to their heart.

Another possible restricted democracy could be just restricting the right to vote to those who have served the country in army, public service, etc, like in Heinlein "Starship troopers".

Brennan doesn't propose a system with a very restrict suffrage, he proposes several alternatives, one of them is just to pass test of minimum concepts to have right to vote (just the things that one need to acquire the citizenship nowadays). That test would exclude the complete ignorant.

Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: MSJ on August 23, 2017, 07:04:51 pm
Quote from:  tleilaxu
That's pretty much what democracy is though, except the ones making the decisions seem to more often than not be predatory power-seekers instead of people genuinely seeking the long-term success and proliferation of humans. The opinions of the masses are worthless when you can engineer narratives that have no basis in real world fact, but are only there to feed the narrative. The problem with not having democracy is that all autocratic governments to date have been nepotistic and corrupt.
Imagine having something like an Ark though, an AI that determines how things work. That might ironically be better for us.

I agree the ones in power are, generally speaking, not worried about the overall welfare of the masses. If this new system would be any good it would have to be made up of people who a genuinely concerned with the welfare of everyone. And, I honestly cannot see a way that would happen. What is good for one, is definitely not for another. I don't think there can or will ever be a perfect system. Whats to say these "intellectuals" wouldn't succumb to the trappings of power as everyone inevitably does?
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Somnambulist on August 23, 2017, 07:09:56 pm
Quote from:  tleilaxu
That's pretty much what democracy is though, except the ones making the decisions seem to more often than not be predatory power-seekers instead of people genuinely seeking the long-term success and proliferation of humans. The opinions of the masses are worthless when you can engineer narratives that have no basis in real world fact, but are only there to feed the narrative. The problem with not having democracy is that all autocratic governments to date have been nepotistic and corrupt.
Imagine having something like an Ark though, an AI that determines how things work. That might ironically be better for us.

I agree the ones in power are, generally speaking, not worried about the overall welfare of the masses. If this new system would be any good it would have to be made up of people who a genuinely concerned with the welfare of everyone. And, I honestly cannot see a way that would happen. What is good for one, is definitely not for another. I don't think there can or will ever be a perfect system. Whats to say these "intellectuals" wouldn't succumb to the trappings of power as everyone inevitably does?

By making it a capital offense to profit in any way, aside from their base pay, while in office.  That would be a good start.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: MSJ on August 23, 2017, 07:11:25 pm
Quote from:  Woden
Another possible restricted democracy could be just restricting the right to vote to those who have served the country in army, public service, etc, like in Heinlein "Starship troopers".

Restricted Democracy....hmmmm. What makes those persons views the right ones? Wouldn't that lead to the government controlling the vote? If only those who can vote served the government? I don't know, none of these, to me, are any better than what we have. In fact, imo, your taking away rights from the majority of the nation. Doesn't seem to me What this country was founded on.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Wilshire on August 23, 2017, 07:17:50 pm
Whats to say these "intellectuals" wouldn't succumb to the trappings of power as everyone inevitably does?

As I've said, its very difficult to remove people from the equation.
People are easily corruptible and manipulated.
The opinions of the masses though aren't much better.  People are idiots.

something like an Ark though, an AI that determines how things work. That might ironically be better for us.
I largely agree. This solution bothers me less than it does most, I think.

Another possible restricted democracy could be just restricting the right to vote to those who have served the country in army, public service, etc, like in Heinlein "Starship troopers".

I like the idea of restricted democracies. I just wouldn't want to do the job of sorting out who gets to vote and who doesn't.  I don't think I deserve to vote - I don't know shit about politics and the idea that there are a bunch of people like me running around voting terrifies me, not even considering that there are people who's motives I can't even fathom...

Maybe the bottom line is that its laughable to have a country the size of the US. To wide geographically, to populous, to many industries. Cut the states loose and see what happens...

Democracies perhaps decrease in effectiveness proportionally to their population size.

Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Wilshire on August 23, 2017, 07:24:15 pm
Restricted Democracy....hmmmm. What makes those persons views the right ones?
All I can think of is how we jerrymander voting blocks, imagine doing that directly with who passes which criteria every election cycle. You'd just end up with 1 party/person in power forever.

Wouldn't that lead to the government controlling the vote?
Yup, probably. But it already largely does, so not much of a change.

If only those who can vote served the government?
Certainly personallity types are prone to this or that thing - be it fighting in a battle or voulenteering out a soup kitchen. Neither is necessarily better than the other. We are all bias, and people who wanted to be in power would just do whatever that thing is that's required to get to high office.

I don't know, none of these, to me, are any better than what we have. In fact, imo, your taking away rights from the majority of the nation. Doesn't seem to me What this country was founded on.

Yes, taking away the right to vote for many people is largely the point. Mob mentality is not a great way to make decisions - it panders to the base instincts like fear/hope. Might as well let a bunch of lemurs pick a name out of a hat.

I don't think we're talking necessarily about 'what our country was founded on', but more so what would be better for us as a whole.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Woden on August 23, 2017, 07:26:02 pm
Quote from:  Woden
Another possible restricted democracy could be just restricting the right to vote to those who have served the country in army, public service, etc, like in Heinlein "Starship troopers".

Restricted Democracy....hmmmm. What makes those persons views the right ones? Wouldn't that lead to the government controlling the vote? If only those who can vote served the government? I don't know, none of these, to me, are any better than what we have. In fact, imo, your taking away rights from the majority of the nation. Doesn't seem to me What this country was founded on.

Every country have different histories and background.
Simplifying: My country was founded on fighting Islam and retake the land that muslims have taken, that struggle was what united our different christian kingdoms. Our main problem is that probably we will have to fight again sooner or later.

Anyway, Heinlein said that only the citizens that have done something for their country should have the right to vote, the others that haven't done anything will have their liberty, etc, but not the right to vote or to partake in the government of the country.
I like that.

If you haven't read "Starship troopers", please do it. YOU MUST READ IT. It is a masterpiece of sci-fi. The movie is a blasphemous adaptation that perverts and inverts the message of the book, so do not care about it and read the book.

And if you have the possibility read the essay of Brennan too, it was edited by Princeton press last year. You can agree or disagree with what proposes but Brennan's diagnosis of the current state of affairs in democracy is fairly accurate.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Woden on August 23, 2017, 07:28:51 pm
Now just to get these things out there and get rid of our currently lame systems. How do we go about that lol? I don't suppose violent coups are on the table...

This is the problem. It is very unlikely that people would agree to lose their right to vote for a "greater good" and vote such a constitutional modification.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Wilshire on August 23, 2017, 07:52:22 pm
Forever War and Starship Troopers are both on my list to read. When I'll ever get to it, who knows, but I'm very interested.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: MSJ on August 23, 2017, 08:11:26 pm
I get what you guys are saying. I certainly know our system isn't perfect, ummm, just look at the White House. I just don't see how any of these being proposed would be better and would not lead to basically a tyrant(s) ruling over us.

And, as I said, when only a certain portion of the public gets to vote and that portion all has the same thing in common, that would tend to not have any variance of views, wouldn't it? Also, I mean duri g the last 100 year's this country has fought for the right for women and blacks to vote. A bloody fight, mind you. And, we would just take away that right for the majority of the country?

Its just seems fanciful in my mind. There be no way I could see the majority of America wanting that. Maybe it would be better, you'd never know until you try, I guess.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Hiro on August 23, 2017, 09:50:01 pm
I mean to say that I'm very confident that as soon as one's own life is at stake, of your own wife or daughter is raped and killed, one has no problem with morality, moralizing and clear moral choices.
...
The question therefore is, why can't you apply that personal stake to others as well? Which is succinctly expressed in various religions as 'do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself' (paraphrasing a bit here).
...
the dignity of our own life and that of others.
...

- Both of these points lead to the recognition that our own life and that of others are not separate. Therefore, a basis for morality being relative is tenuous.

Defending yourself doesn't make it moral: ie, Hitler defended himself until he gave up. Does that justify his war because he knew if he lost that he'd be killed? I don't think it does.

Defending another doesn't make it moral: All war could be justified as defending your compatriots against the evil invaders.

I think people hold their own lives in high regard, but not those of others. See: war, or any other act of violence.

So, imo, your points point out only the disfunction of beliving in some type of objective morality: that self preservation is the only thing that 'morality' ever leads to. I'd rather not live in a world where "I" am the only thing that matters, justified by each persons personal sense of 'what is right'. There isn't objective morality that I've seen - I think if there was, then we'd all agree on it, certainly after thinking about it for 2000+ years.

W, I'm not sure where you are coming from here. Or I've been extremely unclear. I do not recognize anything, of what you write in response, in connection to what I wrote, or at least meant:

I stated, in other words, that to extend morality outside your own life to the recognition that all life has value and dignity, is a worthwhile model of a non-relative moral. That's about the opposite of what you wrote down. Isn't it?



Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Wilshire on August 24, 2017, 11:54:57 am
I stated, in other words, that to extend morality outside your own life to the recognition that all life has value and dignity, is a worthwhile model of a non-relative moral.

While that might be a worthwhile thing for everyone to do, I don't think that's how people operate. I don't disagree that this model would be useful in avoiding people fighting/killing/violence et al , I just don't think that's how people work.

I get what you guys are saying. I certainly know our system isn't perfect, ummm, just look at the White House. I just don't see how any of these being proposed would be better and would not lead to basically a tyrant(s) ruling over us.

And, as I said, when only a certain portion of the public gets to vote and that portion all has the same thing in common, that would tend to not have any variance of views, wouldn't it? Also, I mean duri g the last 100 year's this country has fought for the right for women and blacks to vote. A bloody fight, mind you. And, we would just take away that right for the majority of the country?

Its just seems fanciful in my mind. There be no way I could see the majority of America wanting that. Maybe it would be better, you'd never know until you try, I guess.


Just like democracy, any system only works insofar as it avoids corruption. You can have a tyrant in a democratic system - this is why we have term limits in the first place - but its probably less likely than, say, a dictatorship, or a divine monarchy.

People in the thread kept saying that the system was bad, so I asked them to suggest something else. I think the given examples provide interesting alternatives, and they align well with my general feeling that 'letting everyone vote' is a silly idea.

An ideal governance system, to me, has to start with agreeing on whats 'right' and whats 'wrong'. We never have had an agreement on what that is, so its difficult for a bunch of people with different starting points to come to a common end. (not even mentioning that these things change over time).

But once you've done that, once everyone agrees on what the government should do, you then need a system that prevents corruption. The way we attempted to set up our democracy tried to do that, and probably do a good job for a while, but its a mess at this point. Many of the rules are archaic and don't make sense. There's too many people, imo, that have spent their whole lives in the system, to many family political dynasties, too many old names. Any system that's been around long enough will eventually be subsumed by those who wish to control it.

Anyway, if you assume that you've accomplished those two things, any conceivable governing system is probably just as good as the next. In fact, if you assume the above, letting a bunch of people randomly select a leader based on their charisma alone is probably one of the worst ways to do it.

Think of it like the Vatican/Pope. You get a bunch of people who are ostensibly only interested in the enrichment of humanity. All of them are devoted to the cause for their whole life. Stick them in a room, and let them decide who among them they think is the best of the best. IMO, that would probably lead to a better leader (assuming minimal corruption), than our current system. It lessens the chance that a demagogue of any description takes control...

But I don't know where you'd ever find a sufficiently large and diverse enough group that are so altruistic as to be immune from corruption.

Any system will be hacked eventually. The trick is to prevent that eventuality for as long as possible, make it hard, but also to have mechanisms in place to reverse it once it happens. 

For the US, I think a big part of that would be to stop allowing people/families to build political dynasties, to be entrenched in the system for a lifetime, for generations. That kind of nonsense leads to corruption - you don't want people around so long that they start meta-gaming our democracy lol (which has probably been happening for a long time). And for that, at least trump wasnt another clinton/bush/kennedy/etc.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Woden on August 24, 2017, 12:58:34 pm
I think that the US system needs a resumption. It was created for a very different country than it is now.
Not to mention that the election year is a complete loss of time, resources and money, I hate our election campaigns but fortunately they aren't like the USA ones and don't last for eons.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Woden on August 24, 2017, 02:49:29 pm
The assumption of we are living in democracies is at best wishful thinking.
Aristotle pointed perfectly 2300 years ago how democracies degenerate in demagogies and ochlocracies. It is clear for me that this is our case, our democracies are so flawed that are not democracies any longer and had become some kind of mixed demagogy, ochlocracy and (last but not least) oligarchy.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Wilshire on August 24, 2017, 03:23:10 pm
The assumption of we are living in democracies is at best wishful thinking.
Aristotle pointed perfectly 2300 years ago how democracies degenerate in demagogies and ochlocracies. It is clear for me that this is our case, our democracies are so flawed that are not democracies any longer and had become some kind of mixed demagogy, ochlocracy and (last but not least) oligarchy.

Love this quote, from the associated wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses#cite_note-6) page:

"Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses"
- Juvenal (circa A.D. 100)

Explained: "Roman politicians passed laws in 140 B.C. to keep the votes of poorer citizens, by introducing a grain dole: giving out cheap food and entertainment, "bread and circuses", became the most effective way to rise to power."

I don't know if that's so much a flaw in democracy as it is a flaw in people. Engage, satisfied, and educated citizens shouldn't be so easily goaded, and yet, we have thousands of years of this history repeating. Very clearly, democracy isnt the best solution, but I still hold that people are the problem. I don't know how you fix that. More people doesn't solve the problem, and neither does less. At best, its a cultural thing, and specifically the US has fallen into the same trap as Rome 2000 years ago.

All our leaders more/less run on the same idea, and its not a new one: make people emotional and they vote for you. I don't want our leaders to be picked solely for their charisma and their ability to tap into the mobs emotions.

But the human condition is to follow these types of people. Its how we are wired. People make decisions based on emotions, based on TDTCB, not based on logic and reason. Alas, great leaders are great largely because they can make people feel a certain way, and therefore do certain things. As with Churchill, as with Hitler. The difference is not how they come to power, but what they choose to do with it.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: themerchant on August 24, 2017, 04:12:24 pm
Well we don't elect all the decision makers.

In the UK the civil servants make a lot of decisions, never voted in. Same with upper echelons of military and intelligence services. Plus all the Lobbying groups etc.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: TaoHorror on August 24, 2017, 04:43:41 pm
Friends, I spot read through this thread, not reading all posts, so forgive me if I’ve missed elements that renders my point moot. Friendly advice – don’t make your posts so long! You bore the rest of us. Here is my brief contribution:

The “Founding Fathers” of United States democracy originally considered only allowing those who owned property the right to vote, the thinking being if you didn’t own property then you most likely weren’t educated and couldn’t be trusted with the responsibility to vote for competent leaders in lieu of demagogues promising the sky and taking advantage of the sorry masses. The “Pursuit of Happiness” part of the US Declaration of Independence was “The Right to Property” in its original draft. They finally agreed to forgo property and afforded the right to vote for any/all white men of legal citizenship.

There are benefits/detriments for the different styles of government. Dictatorship is seductive with the promise of allowing for rapid change without bureaucratic or political obstacles; it’s weakness ( among other things ), absent objective criteria for transfer of power, the competition for power intensifies and becomes violent leaving the dictator paranoid and ruthless to hold on to power compromising his/her ability to lead the country and becomes a hotbed for corruption. Monarchy is an attractive alternative to dictatorship, allowing for a more stable society with the nice feature of mentor-ship for those next in line. Transition of power is objective and typically peaceful and the new king/queen typically has at least some idea on how to lead the country given the ruler was their parent. The primary weakness is what do you do when the “next in line” is either uninterested or not up to the task of leading - yielding mad kings, etc.

Democracy is a mess. But in the chaotic stew that is democracy, a society can achieve a strength of culture ensuring peaceful transition of power ( in the sense of non-violent, still can be mad competitive ) and provides the highest morale in the citizenry over the other forms of government. The weaknesses of democracy are sharp and costly, but overall appear to be the better of the alternatives. It may never change. I’m proud my country has constitutional mechanisms to keep a fraud in check ( a risk of democracy, the citizens voting in their destroyer ) and maintaining rights which cannot be voted away. There’s a beauty to it – the mad process of reconciling so many diverse views into action, but peacefully. I’ll take lies/deceptions which can be freely vetted/debated over violence. While imperfect ( obviously ), it’s the better way to go. Manipulation/Propaganda/Deception are far the better evil to deal with than slaughter/assassination.

The power of the culture really drives the success of government. We have plenty of variations of democracy/republics and most of them are doing just fine – they’re a reflection of their people. Many of the criticisms I’m seeing have been expressed over the decades of my life, yet here we are, still alive, still with time for fun. The corruption we witness in our democratic governments has not risen to the level of "breaking" society - it sucks, but some corruption can be sustained. Much of what we call corruption is the very real human activity of networking, the you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. The network of the ruling class has been around for thousand+ years, yet humanity still grows. Not saying don't root it out and jail people, just saying to not get too worked up about it, it's not the major threat to our society.

In my 2 pound brain opinion … restricting the right to vote is a mistake; only the costs of such an approach would be endured, no benefits of “easier” government. You can’t have the beauty of our differences without the mess of reconciling those differences for government. The system is not bad … it’s the system yielding the best morale while reflecting the limitations of society. Not to say it can’t be improved – figuring out how to take money out of politics would be cool.

This stuff about morality is dicey. Humans are indeterminately moral. Best you can hope for is to live in a moral society with “i-moral” constituents. Could be worse, could live in an immoral ( Rome ) or amoral society ( Soviet Union ). The morality of the society provides a framework for citizens to live; the individuals are ( beautifully? ) morally abstract. You could be a racist firefighter harassing a mixed couple in the morning and risk your life to save the same mixed couple from a burning house in the afternoon ( the movie Crash did a nice job of demonstrating this ). The only path for us is to follow the wisdom of Dory and just keep swimming. You want a better world, be a better person … the rest will take care of itself. If you’re one of the few who can dynamically effect people, then feel free to promote a better world beyond your friends/family sphere. Don’t beat yourself up too much when you falter, you’re only a creature apparently arbitrarily showing up in a space/time of not your choosing having to live among so many who don’t share your cosmology with limited understanding of the universe trying to survive the violence of humanity/cosmos all the while you’re looking up.

Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: TLEILAXU on August 24, 2017, 08:37:59 pm
The assumption of we are living in democracies is at best wishful thinking.
Aristotle pointed perfectly 2300 years ago how democracies degenerate in demagogies and ochlocracies. It is clear for me that this is our case, our democracies are so flawed that are not democracies any longer and had become some kind of mixed demagogy, ochlocracy and (last but not least) oligarchy.

Love this quote, from the associated wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses#cite_note-6) page:

"Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses"
- Juvenal (circa A.D. 100)

Explained: "Roman politicians passed laws in 140 B.C. to keep the votes of poorer citizens, by introducing a grain dole: giving out cheap food and entertainment, "bread and circuses", became the most effective way to rise to power."

I don't know if that's so much a flaw in democracy as it is a flaw in people. Engage, satisfied, and educated citizens shouldn't be so easily goaded, and yet, we have thousands of years of this history repeating. Very clearly, democracy isnt the best solution, but I still hold that people are the problem. I don't know how you fix that. More people doesn't solve the problem, and neither does less. At best, its a cultural thing, and specifically the US has fallen into the same trap as Rome 2000 years ago.

All our leaders more/less run on the same idea, and its not a new one: make people emotional and they vote for you. I don't want our leaders to be picked solely for their charisma and their ability to tap into the mobs emotions.

But the human condition is to follow these types of people. Its how we are wired. People make decisions based on emotions, based on TDTCB, not based on logic and reason. Alas, great leaders are great largely because they can make people feel a certain way, and therefore do certain things. As with Churchill, as with Hitler. The difference is not how they come to power, but what they choose to do with it.
Really cool that you mention the bread thing. A professor once told me that people don't actually care that much about who or what governs them as long as they have food on the table. This was the true reason for the Arabic Spring, she said. Economic problems had made food-prices sky-rocket, the reason was not that people were "hungering for democracy, freedom, and the total enlightenment of secular humanism" like the media painted it. I'm inclined to believe she was right, at least somewhat.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Wilshire on August 24, 2017, 09:27:34 pm
That's an old concept.

There's some saying/idiom:

"There are only nine meals between mankind and anarchy” was said by writer Alfred Henry Lewis (1855-1914) in a March 1906 issue of Cosmopolitan Magazine. “It’s only nine meals between men and revolution” was cited in print in 1943. "

Basically that hungry people will topple governments, and we aren't as civilized as we like to think.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: MSJ on August 24, 2017, 11:44:37 pm
TaoHorror, TL;DR....lol!

Guys I would be cool with any form of government that would improve upon what we currently have. I wants Whats best for everyone though, that's where my concern lies.

Wilshire, yes, our democracy, if not for Trump was basically turning into an oligarchy(I believe that's the term in looking for), between the Bush's and Clinton's. And, if a new type of government restricted voters and it was done well and considered the welfare of everyone, id be happy with that. That said, I don't agree with your sentiment that even you shouldn't have a vote. Dude, your not a uneducated person (I can tell your quite articulate from this forum), and I'm sure you have views that mean alot to you. Your voice counts man.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: TaoHorror on August 25, 2017, 12:57:07 am
That's an old concept.

There's some saying/idiom:

"There are only nine meals between mankind and anarchy” was said by writer Alfred Henry Lewis (1855-1914) in a March 1906 issue of Cosmopolitan Magazine. “It’s only nine meals between men and revolution” was cited in print in 1943. "

Basically that hungry people will topple governments, and we aren't as civilized as we like to think.

Except when led by Kellhus  ;)

Reminds me of one of the funnier parts of TUC ... when some ran down "deserters", I did laugh out loud at that one. Is there a thread documenting the humor of the series? I can start the thread if not already done. ( paraphrasing ) the if someone hung hell from the ceiling would think it would yield more light ( another one that got me laughing ).
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Wilshire on August 25, 2017, 12:01:23 pm
lol, there is, but just make a new one if you don't want to dig it up ;)
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Wilshire on August 25, 2017, 12:19:42 pm
Wilshire, yes, our democracy, if not for Trump was basically turning into an oligarchy(I believe that's the term in looking for), between the Bush's and Clinton's.

My post got to long, so I deleted out some paragraphs regarding this. We've got political dynasties in the US, and I think the Bush/Clinton families have had their turn, get them out. I think the election was really supposed to have been between Sanders/Trump but democrats sabotaged to some degree Sanders. After all, the differences between those campaigns (Trump/Sanders) were minimal. As much as I dislike giving any credence to trump, at least it wasn't a race between Bush/Clinton - I would have disliked that much more, I think.

And, if a new type of government restricted voters and it was done well and considered the welfare of everyone, id be happy with that.

I think we all would.

That said, I don't agree with your sentiment that even you shouldn't have a vote.

Sure maybe, but being articulate doesn't mean I know any more than the next guy about politics. I'm just as biased as the rest and I only care about a couple of issues (which I spend some nominal amount of time looking into) but outside of those few things, I probably know about the average amount of politics as everyone else. But really, calling for other's to not be allowed to vote and also saying that I should be one of the chosen is not what I'm trying to project. *shudders*.


You want a better world, be a better person … the rest will take care of itself. If you’re one of the few who can dynamically effect people, then feel free to promote a better world beyond your friends/family sphere.

Great post TaoHorror. You've captured much of the conversation in one place. And don't feel like you need to read 5 pages of posts before participating.
Anyway, that axiom is approximately how I interact with life. People typically do as the people around them. There are always outliers in either direction.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: TLEILAXU on August 25, 2017, 08:40:37 pm
That is not enough for me. There is an ABSOLUTE to be attained, fellows. Democracy has stagnated for too long and secular humanism can be as much of a hindrance to progress as religion. We need radical change!
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Wilshire on August 25, 2017, 10:58:45 pm
That is not enough for me. There is an ABSOLUTE to be attained, fellows. Democracy has stagnated for too long and secular humanism can be as much of a hindrance to progress as religion. We need radical change!

Post-humanism approaches, as does the AI/technological singularity. Radical changes will be upon us in a dozen decades or so, +/- a century depending on who you ask.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: solipsisticurge on August 25, 2017, 11:28:09 pm
There's an old saying is U.S. politics: "Democrats fall in love; Republicans fall in line." I firmly believe Sanders would have won the general election, as the Trump win basically came from working class voters straying from the Democratic flock (due to tepid opinions of Clinton in many cases), and low turnout by young/unaligned/idealistic voters who would typically lean Democratic, again, due to a lack of excitement for Clinton. It also allowed Trump to gain most of the "I just want a CHANGE!" votes that didn't go third party, where Sanders was far enough removed from Democratic middle ground to gain some of those votes.

You alienate a small margin in the swing states, you lose the election.

TaoHorror, the basic problem with any proposed or actual system is human weakness and the corrupting nature of power (or tendency of power to attract the already corrupt). Totalitarian communism would be great if people were capable of objectively and skillfully managing all the minutiae involved. They just aren't. Democracy/representative republics would be great if people actually made informed decisions and had the time or mental capacity to analyze all relevant data and make a truly informed decision divorced from emotion or bias. They just don't.

I don't have an answer for what would be superior. Humans will fuck up whatever sounds nice on paper. Even if we hand it over to the computer overlords, some human shortcut in the programming of the AI they evolved from will have them fucking up the show just as badly as we have so far.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Woden on August 26, 2017, 07:25:22 am

Wilshire, yes, our democracy, if not for Trump was basically turning into an oligarchy(I believe that's the term in looking for), between the Bush's and Clinton's.

The presidents are only the known faces of the oligarchy, but they are like pawns of the Dark Power who rules the world from behind moving the strings.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: TLEILAXU on August 26, 2017, 01:26:14 pm
That is not enough for me. There is an ABSOLUTE to be attained, fellows. Democracy has stagnated for too long and secular humanism can be as much of a hindrance to progress as religion. We need radical change!

Post-humanism approaches, as does the AI/technological singularity. Radical changes will be upon us in a dozen decades or so, +/- a century depending on who you ask.
A dozen decades? That'd make me 144 years old by then. Doubt I'll be in greatest shape. I'm kind of triggered by the term post-humanism and its associations of neckbeards pretending CRISPR-Cas will make them immortal or that implanting a chip to open a security door is somehow is a huge step toward uploading your brain to the cloud and living forever in the digital Utopia (which is pure fantasy if you ask me), but if you really want to get there you have to do some things which are unethical by today's standards, such as experimenting with gene-editing human embryos.
The point is that it's not just going to come if we just sit here and wait, we have to get out there advocating for it, and that becomes a problem when the majority of the population starts thinking anything related to gene-editing is unnatural and IMMORAL.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: MSJ on August 26, 2017, 05:30:11 pm
Yea, but it's going to happen. As someone said before on the forum, China will probably say Fuck your morals and start manipulating DNA and the such. And, I don't think we're to far off. Probably have already been done, imho.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: TLEILAXU on August 26, 2017, 06:07:00 pm
Yea, but it's going to happen. As someone said before on the forum, China will probably say Fuck your morals and start manipulating DNA and the such. And, I don't think we're to far off. Probably have already been done, imho.
I'm the one who said that, but it still doesn't change much for we who live in the West. Keep in mind that nations and scientists doing unethical things can also be pressured economically. Your paper might not get published if it trespasses too much on what is considered ethical behavior.
I would consider the US one of the more liberal nations of the West in this regard, and look at the current situation http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/us-panel-gives-yellow-light-human-embryo-editing
Also, take a look at this statement from 2015 http://www.nature.com/news/don-t-edit-the-human-germ-line-1.17111
More specifically the quote
Quote
We are concerned that a public outcry about such an ethical breach could hinder a promising area of therapeutic development, namely making genetic changes that cannot be inherited.
These guys are AFRAID that negative PUBLIC opinion will hinder their own research. They're afraid that the fickle acceptance of the masses can turn into a massive hetz if a popular narrative so demands. This is what you work against. Look at how things are going on in the current zeitgeist. Organic movements are becoming more popular, the notion that natural = good, synthetic = evil is more popular than ever.
Unless your idea of the singularity is an AI that's really good at recommending porn, things aren't this straight-forward, there needs to be active involvement.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: MSJ on August 26, 2017, 06:37:00 pm
Fair enough. And, yea I get that public backlash is going to be quite harsh. What are you looking for tleilaxu? Are you concerned with extending your own life? Is it your wish to be immortal?

These things will have to happen organically, or they simply won't be accepted. In some cases, many people will never accept the cloning of people or even the manipulation of our DNA. Some people don't like the idea of playing God.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: TLEILAXU on August 26, 2017, 07:11:11 pm
Fair enough. And, yea I get that public backlash is going to be quite harsh. What are you looking for tleilaxu? Are you concerned with extending your own life? Is it your wish to be immortal?
I do wish to be immortal, or something like it, but I guess it's also just a drive. Mankind, or at least parts of it, has always had a curiosity and a lust for transcendence.

These things will have to happen organically, or they simply won't be accepted. In some cases, many people will never accept the cloning of people or even the manipulation of our DNA. Some people don't like the idea of playing God.
What is organically? Nuclear power is strongly opposed in many countries ideological reasons, whereas others see it as a cheap and relatively clean source of energy. The US has been making GMO crops for decades while in the EU it's still outlawed, although IIRC one or two are imported.
Quote
In some cases, many people will never accept the cloning of people or even the manipulation of our DNA.
Which is why them having power is problematic.
Quote
Some people don't like the idea of playing God.
Notice the socio-cultural load of this sentence. If gene-editing is playing God that indicates a STATIC nature, unchanging, perhaps divinely created as in Christianity or containing some spiritual essence as in new-age cults. In the end it's matter interacting with matter, not fundamentally that different from laying two blocks atop one another, although a more complex task for sure.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Wilshire on August 30, 2017, 07:12:02 pm
Get some humans off earth onto Mars, and the post-humans will come back and look at earth like the "earthicans" (futurama term, lol) are a bunch of braindead monkeys.

Remove economics a bit and raise up survival needs and the change will happen far more rapidly then trying to subvert millennium old dogmas. My opinion, at least.

That's pretty much why GMO's are even 'allowed' to exist - remove them and there simply isn't enough food production to feed everyone. Europe would lift that ban tomorrow if the US decided to ban production and millions of people around the world started dying of starvation - call it altruistic to hide the fact that the economic vacuum left behind would make billions for those that fill it...

Anyway, eugenics will need that to really take off, but strong AI not so much. Machine Leaning AI's are economically some of the most well funded research projects today, which are precursors to strong AI. Its still a big step up from there, but we're getting there.
Btw, a dozen decades (12 * 10 years = 120 years), +/- a century (120+100, or 120-100) would be between 20 and 220 years. People get all mystic/doomsday/optimistic with their predictions regarding these things, and that range captures most every prediction.


I think MSJ meant 'organically' as in it will naturally happen over time and trying to push it 'before people are ready' will have the opposite effect. I'm with you though, little we do as humans is 'natural', and thinking that eugenics crosses some kind of line that hasn't already been crossed to me is a sort of a fundamental misunderstanding of reality.


"Natural" makes me chuckle. Either nothing has been "natural" since we started farming and metal working, or everything that humans do is "natural" because we aren't magical beings that exist outside of nature.
"Playing God" is equally nebulous as far as I'm concerned, and then we're back to rehashing "whose god, who gets to decide, why them, shouldn't there be some kind of vote, why is voting better than..." etc. etc.
Even ignoring that, Humanity started playing god when we started cultivating farmland, domesticating animals, and genetically modifying our enslaved animals/plants via animal husbandry and cultivation. Eugenics has been around for nearly as far back as human history goes, applying it directly at the genetic level is more of the same if you ask me.
"GMO" is a meaningless term used by some groups to stay in control. Nearly everything in an industrialized country is genetically modified. From the grass we walk on to the food we eat. :)
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: MSJ on August 30, 2017, 08:02:35 pm
Quote from:  Wilshire
I think MSJ meant 'organically' as in it will naturally happen over time and trying to push it 'before people are ready' will have the opposite effect. I'm with you though, little we do as humans is 'natural', and thinking that eugenics crosses some kind of line that hasn't already been crossed to me is a sort of a fundamental misunderstanding of reality.

I agree with you and your correct in my assessment of natural. I agree we've probably already crossed these boundaries. But, take for example abortion. We can't even begin to decide that what is the right way to handle this situation. The left, it doesn't matter it's the woman's body, the right any and all abortions is murder. It probably lies somewhere in the middle and there are ways to prevent having abortion. So, when I say naturally, I mean, something will be done in regards to gene manipulation that undoubtedly is better for mankind and no one can dispute it. But, some always will, we can ignore them. I will admit though, it scares the shit out of me. I'm not saying it won't be a great leap in humanity, but it has equal chance to be the ruin of human civilization. I hear scientists and such say it just adjusting matter and this and that. Because, they're scientists, they wanna push the limit and explore. But, maybe that shit was meant to be manipulated and what if we manipulate it in the wrong way and boom, disaster!
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: TaoHorror on August 30, 2017, 09:48:43 pm
Solip - Not sure what your point is - no government is "great". Some are more effective than others in promoting "successful" society given human reality. If we were this or that is simply day-dreaming. Don't see a "better" alternative to Democractic Republics ( voting people in to do the work of government with constitutional protections ). We've grown in population and technological proliferation yielding a complexity too daunting for a single individual to manage. You're accurate on the weakness of democracy, the solution is to proliferate education to as many as possible. And even that, won't "solve" problems with corruption, pettiness, stupidity ... unfortuneately, those qualities are here to stay, my friend. Constitutional balance of power mechanisms have yeilded the "best" results thus far. What else could there be?

Woden - disagree, you're giving humanity too much credit to sport the competence for true conspiracy ( conspiracy would be an impressive achievement and a relief if there was indeed one - but simply beyond our grasp ). There are human networks operating in the leadership superstructure, but they evolve/devolve, change directions and don't amount to "conspiracy". The "bad"/"corrupt"/"destructive" decisions of government stem from incompetence, not evil manipulation.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: TLEILAXU on August 31, 2017, 03:21:36 am
That's pretty much why GMO's are even 'allowed' to exist - remove them and there simply isn't enough food production to feed everyone. Europe would lift that ban tomorrow if the US decided to ban production and millions of people around the world started dying of starvation - call it altruistic to hide the fact that the economic vacuum left behind would make billions for those that fill it...
I wouldn't be so sure of that. Asian and African nations for sure, yes, but the EU is ideologically deeply committed to this path.

Anyway, eugenics will need that to really take off, but strong AI not so much. Machine Leaning AI's are economically some of the most well funded research projects today, which are precursors to strong AI. Its still a big step up from there, but we're getting there.
I'm probably sounding like a broken record by now, but I firmly believe this will never happen.

I think MSJ meant 'organically' as in it will naturally happen over time and trying to push it 'before people are ready' will have the opposite effect. I'm with you though, little we do as humans is 'natural', and thinking that eugenics crosses some kind of line that hasn't already been crossed to me is a sort of a fundamental misunderstanding of reality.
But will it though? Look at the public perception of GMOs, they seem to be getting worse and worse. It's not going to come UNTIL the zeitgeist itself changes, and that won't happen without active participation. Also, we should use another term than eugenics  8). It's too associated with the disastrous pseudo science of the early 20th century

"Playing God" is equally nebulous as far as I'm concerned, and then we're back to rehashing "whose god, who gets to decide, why them, shouldn't there be some kind of vote, why is voting better than..." etc. etc.
Even ignoring that, Humanity started playing god when we started cultivating farmland, domesticating animals, and genetically modifying our enslaved animals/plants via animal husbandry and cultivation. Eugenics has been around for nearly as far back as human history goes, applying it directly at the genetic level is more of the same if you ask me.
"GMO" is a meaningless term used by some groups to stay in control. Nearly everything in an industrialized country is genetically modified. From the grass we walk on to the food we eat. :)
Humans have been playing God since their ancient microbial ancestors performed horizontal gene transfer in the oceans billions of years ago  8)

But, take for example abortion. We can't even begin to decide that what is the right way to handle this situation. The left, it doesn't matter it's the woman's body, the right any and all abortions is murder. It probably lies somewhere in the middle and there are ways to prevent having abortion.
More like it's completely fucking arbitrary, if you ask me  8) ABORTIONS FOR ALL! From my throne of aborted fetuses I shall command my baby-devouring legions to spread Monsanto's GMO maize across the stars.

But, maybe that shit was meant to be manipulated and what if we manipulate it in the wrong way and boom, disaster!
Nah bro. The only thing that could truly cause disaster is a cosmic event, a big climate change or nuclear war, which is why we should fear World War IV indeed.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: MSJ on August 31, 2017, 03:00:44 pm
Quote from:  tleilaxu
Nah bro. The only thing that could truly cause disaster is a cosmic event, a big climate change or nuclear war, which is why we should fear World War IV indeed.

What makes you so sure? What if by genetically altering the make up of humans, those new humans think the rest of us are just bugs? What them? What if we Fuck up and give them super -human powers, unlocking something that's in all of us and they use it to destroy mankind? I mean bro, you don't know what will happen til it does, simple and plain. I know, I'm thinking worst case scenario here. But, better that than owe we can Fuck around and make these babies super smart and everything will be just fine. We all live in peace and harmony. I think it's quote better to expect the worse and pray for the best. Just my 2 cents.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: TaoHorror on August 31, 2017, 03:15:55 pm
Sticking to my guns with regards to genetic "optimization" that differentiation/randomness/error/mutation will out perform objective design ... forever. I agree some with MSJ that this is the stuff of scientific horror show regarding generic engineered superior intelligence , but the likely outcome is frustration/failure. Best application is "improving" constitution over intelligence; improving our ability to withstand viruses/disease and thwarting clearly negative fetal development ( e.g. autism ) will be MUCH more useful than generating "super humans"/"superior intellect" for which we'll simply fail to muster anything significant as best case scenario and a waste of time. We've already been doing it "mating" perceived highly intelligent/successful persons with each other which yielded mostly nothing ( just another batch of random minds with strengths/weaknesses with a variety of "success" in life ). Simply, no matter how successful you are in generating "smarter" people, plenty of the batch will "reject society", "self destructive", "low performers", "lazy" ... that small point of free will screwing it all up.

Edit: there is rich psychological research revealing "smarter" people are easier to con, their over confidence in their intellect preventing them from learning how not to be taken advantage of. Plenty of data showing leadership skills are not IQ based. So a society of super intellects could lead us to ruin not just by virtue of the bullying intellectual elites over the rest of us "duller" minds, but we would be too weak as a species to endure. Hard work/experience will trump high intellect/faster learning ... forever.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: TLEILAXU on August 31, 2017, 03:53:12 pm
What makes you so sure? What if by genetically altering the make up of humans, those new humans think the rest of us are just bugs? What them? What if we Fuck up and
I'm not gonna say this is not gonna be a valid point of discussion, but I just don't believe reality is going to be like Gattaca, i.e. Eugenics version II if things are handled properly. I'm not arguing for setting the flood gates lose for normies to have all their babies be tall, blonde, blue-eyed Kellhuses, I'm saying we discard the idea, be it subconscious or not, of the static, sacred human form. Cast off this chain and seize the opportunities beyond.
Beside that, the ruling economic elite already view us as bugs.

What if we Fuck up and give them super -human powers, unlocking something that's in all of us and they use it to destroy mankind?
Haha, I guess you watched that Limitless movie too. Anyway, it's not a realistic thing.
I think it's quote better to expect the worse and pray for the best. Just my 2 cents.
You can say that about anything tho. Like, what if cell-phones give everybody brain cancer in 50 years. You gotta look at the actual indications, but it becomes hard to separate bias from fact here.

Sticking to my guns with regards to genetic "optimization" that differentiation/randomness/error/mutation will out perform objective design ... forever.
It's really a false dichotomy if you think about it. Like Wilshire said, humans are a part, not apart, of nature, but it's common for us to think us outside the wild, given that we are obviously conscious, have free will, and are divinely created in the very image of God  8).
In essence, an enzyme being optimized in an industrial research facility is STILL nature acting upon itself, it is still NATURAL selection whereby a given form is selected by environmental constraints.

Edit: there is rich psychological research revealing "smarter" people are easier to con, their over confidence in their intellect preventing them from learning how not to be taken advantage of. Plenty of data showing leadership skills are not IQ based. So a society of super intellects could lead us to ruin not just by virtue of the bullying intellectual elites over the rest of us "duller" minds, but we would be too weak as a species to endure. Hard work/experience will trump high intellect/faster learning ... forever.
Meh, I don't really trust such stuff. Doesn't psychology have huge replicability issues as well? I'd not take any such research seriously without a sea-water enema, i.e. a little bit of salt. Also, I personally think IQ tests are kinda bullshit. I mean, if you have 200 you're probably smart, if you have 50 you're probably retarded, but aside from that it's all fucking vague.
Regarding the hard work thing, that's not really true. I mean, luck, social standing and other things are extremely important, but there are just some individuals who are capable of grasping and learning (certain things) much faster than others.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: MSJ on August 31, 2017, 03:53:56 pm
Huh, never thought of it that way. Look, in all for it if it benefits humanity, period.
Title: World War IV
Post by: Woden on September 01, 2017, 12:09:59 pm
Worst case scenario: morlocks and eloi. But eloi with nukes and superpowers.

Or even worst, weapon races like sranc going medieval with our asses.
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: Srancy on September 05, 2017, 06:10:45 pm
All I know is don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
Title: Re: World War IV
Post by: TaoHorror on September 05, 2017, 09:55:22 pm
All I know is don't blame me, I voted for Kodos

I blame you, my friend - for everything.

(click to show/hide)