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.
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.Lmao.
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...
It is a great problem indeed and I think that there is no good solutions at all.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 :) .
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 :) .
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.MSJ, I was laughing at the ignorance of whoever the person who said that. Not you :) I read your full comment.
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.
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).
The screwed up thing about terrorism is, how exactly do you fight it?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 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?
IMO, its what you get when you let emotion and religion rule the world.
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. ;)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, but to do nothing implies defeat in the end (and sranc violence).
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.
But Nazism wasn't defeated. The German Nazi army was. Nazism is still here, just look at the US.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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
I agree.Lol Woden, you aren't alone in that ;)
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.
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... :)
Then what are you saying? Leaving me to fill in gaps doesn't seem to be working... :)
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.
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 ;) .
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.
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.
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?
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. )
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.
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.
QuoteThe 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.
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? PffftHave 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.
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.
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.
Have you ever considered that this might've been something engineered to morally justify violent actions?
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.
The Hijackers were (predominately) from Saudi Arabia and Bin Laden was in Pakistan. Why was Afghanistan justified?
Quote from: themerchantThe 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.
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).
In the end the scene that Houellebecq depicts in Submission will be possible.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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. ;)
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.
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.QuoteYou 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.
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.
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.
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?
Quote from: WilshireYou 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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.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.
the one the pail devised.
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?
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 don't want to be lead by the meme of the month, is what it comes down to really.
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.That's good enough to me. I don't have any further badgering questions.
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.
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. :)
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.
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.
= 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
As Winston Churchil said: The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
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.…
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
QuoteEpistocracy 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.
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.
Quote from: tleilaxuThat'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?
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".
Whats to say these "intellectuals" wouldn't succumb to the trappings of power as everyone inevitably does?
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".
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.
Quote from: WodenAnother 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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.Humans have been playing God since their ancient microbial ancestors performed horizontal gene transfer in the oceans billions of years ago 8)
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. :)
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.
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 andI'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.
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).
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.
All I know is don't blame me, I voted for Kodos