Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 16 Oct 2006 18:16 On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 21:28:58 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Larkin wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >John Larkin wrote: >> > >> >> Ah, your concern is not about peace. It's not about democracy, or >> >> human rights, or the health or nutrition or safety of the poorest >> >> people in the world. >> > >> >And the USA'a *IS* ????? >> > >> >Graham >> >> I think the theory is that a democratic world, with free people and >> free trade, will be better for everybody, us included. I've heard lots >> worse theories. >> >> What's your version of utopia? > >Ceertainly one where you don't go to war to change ppls minds. > Not to change Saddam's mind, when he wanted Kuwait? Not to change Pol Pot's mind, to end the killing fields? But you addressed what you don't want the world to look like, or rather what you're not willing to do to change the world. But what do you want the world to be like? I mean aside from silly stuff, like "a world without arrogant Americans"? John
From: T Wake on 16 Oct 2006 18:28 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:9pr7j2pq1hoonvptdpvpimvaaa7v057ib8(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 06:10:12 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan > <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: > > >>Evangelicals in the US account for some 30% of the population. Of >>those, the really scary crazy ones are a significant subfraction. But >>a potentially very dangerous portion. >> >>If you wanted to visit here, I'd easily drive you to a few huge places >>where they have their own special "schools" and fenced homes areas and >>I'm pretty sure you'd leave here uncontrollably shaking and preparing >>yourself for a coming Armageddon. >> >>It's enough serious that it cannot be ignored as an influence and it >>really needs to be nipped, somehow. >> >>Jon >> > > Oh relax. The USA has always had a healthy share of loonies, > Theosiphists and nudists and communists and hippie communes and > golfers and gun nuts. Do you propose to "nip" people who don't vote to > your liking? Does it only count if other countries don't behave to your liking?
From: John Larkin on 16 Oct 2006 18:30 On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 21:07:46 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> That is the heart of the issue. If Idi Amin or Pol Pot decides to kill >> a few million of "their own" citizens, do they have the soverign right >> to do so? Is there any such thing as universal human rights? Does the >> government of China "own" Tibet or Taiwan? Do we stand aside from >> genocides and starvation because intervention is, for some reason, >> "unacceptable"? > >Well, a good question and one that is very difficult to answer. > >There are no "universal human rights" as such a concept would be >unenforceable. For example if the right to life is a universal human right, >the US has violated this every time it's soldiers kill some one. As soon as >there is an "acceptable" casualty rate the universal right is lost for >everyone. Thet's the Joan Baez argument: killing is immoral, so you can't kill one person to save a million. >If there is a "universal right" which allows the US to intervene in a >country which is acting in a manner in which it disagrees, that right _must_ >also allow other countries to intervene if the US acts in a manner in which >they disagree. This is obviously not the case so that can't be enforceable. > >I am fairly sure there are no "universal rights" human or otherwise. OK, then anything goes. Whoever had the most guns and bombs prevails, and can kill all he wants, and it doesn't matter to you as long as it's not you he's after. And you don't matter to us at all. > >As to the second issue, should the US intervene? I think an important thing >is that the US, if it wishes to intervene for "good reasons" gets the >support of the international community to avoid looking like it is >profiteering. So why not profiteer, if power is all the matters? >For me personally, the _most_ important thing is consistency >in actions. If Country X is subject to regime change because of [INSERT >LEADER] then the US should treat all similar countries in a similar way. >Dealing and trading with oppressive regimes while attacking others is >inconsistent and undermines any "just cause" argument. > >Invading a country because the ruler is killing lots of people, then killing >lots of people undermines the "just cause" argument. > >Intervention in sovereign states is not a straight forward matter. Did the >US invade Cambodia to protect people from the Killing Fields? VietNam did that; good move. > >Or is it the case that the US cherry pick the times they will act and the >times they wont, when they do act it is "just cause" when the don't it is >the "international community" at fault. The fault of the "international community", whatever that may be, is that there is no accepted definition of human rights, and no concensus on enforcing them even if there were a definition. >What criteria should the US use to determine which countries they will >"save" and which they wont? If there are no standards, and there can't be standards, anything we damned well please. John
From: John Larkin on 16 Oct 2006 18:35 On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 22:01:35 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> Oh relax. The USA has always had a healthy share of loonies, >> Theosiphists and nudists and communists and hippie communes and >> golfers and gun nuts. Do you propose to "nip" people who don't vote to >> your liking? > >Those don't account for 30% of the population who can be persuaded to vote >en-bloc though. > New-York-Times-reading limousine liberals? Yeah, they are scairy. But seriously, in a 2-party race, it's sort of fundamental that at least 30% of the people will vote en-bloc. John
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 16 Oct 2006 18:37
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 13:48:06 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 06:10:12 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan ><jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: > >>Evangelicals in the US account for some 30% of the population. Of >>those, the really scary crazy ones are a significant subfraction. But >>a potentially very dangerous portion. >> >>If you wanted to visit here, I'd easily drive you to a few huge places >>where they have their own special "schools" and fenced homes areas and >>I'm pretty sure you'd leave here uncontrollably shaking and preparing >>yourself for a coming Armageddon. >> >>It's enough serious that it cannot be ignored as an influence and it >>really needs to be nipped, somehow. > >Oh relax. The USA has always had a healthy share of loonies, Agreed. But in its generality, that statement loses any useful judgment value, too. I mean this in this sense: "There has always been a healthy share of alcoholism in the US." But this doesn't mean that it isn't a problem to be confronted. We shouldn't ignore the problem. Especially, as it has actually become a more nagging problem. >Theosiphists and nudists and communists and hippie communes and >golfers and gun nuts. Hehe. We'll have some differences of opinion here, which I'm sure you imagine exactly makes your point. >Do you propose to "nip" people who don't vote to >your liking? Not at all. I was talking about the problem that results, not the people. You have obviously twisted this, not so skillfully, to look otherwise. In any case, the problem I describe is real and isn't to be ignored. The issue boils down to this, which I recently wrote and will simply repost in the interests of time: >: Politics is about finding and bringing to the fore our common goals >: and ideals and about negotiating some kind of respectful middle ground >: that all sides can live with, without necessarily being happy about it >: but at least willing to grudgingly accept it as being something they >: can sincerely work with. We are a large country with a wide variety >: of opinions and values. This is a tough process and it never ends. >: But it is worthwhile, because without this ongoing discovery process >: and a willingness to _seriously_ engage each other to find compromises >: we can live with, ultimately the only other recourse is violence and >: death. Politics is about keeping the social peace, if nothing else. >: And that is done by finding our common values and treating opponents >: with respect sufficient so that some negotiated agreement with them >: will be handled with a serious, earnest and meaningful attempt to >: "meet in the middle." >: >: There must be respect and there must be meaningful compromise. >: >: By contrast, religious belief is dogmatic, inflexible, insincere when >: negotiating because ultimately they "hold the truth" and the other >: side does not, etc. This is why there was a wise, high wall of >: separation between church and state. Not to denigrate religion. Or >: to denigrate the state. But simply because negotiation require a >: willingness to accept and embrace meaningful compromise, a willingness >: to respect and hear out the grievances of those who differ, and to >: accept and seriously engage in supporting arrived at compromises so >: that peace and workable planning on shared common values and goals as >: well as compromises can be had and maintained. >: >: One of the more galling things to me about all of this change, that >: which has gradually developed over my adult lifetime, is that politics >: used to include a lot more respect for opposing positions and a more >: sincere desire to find some kind of negotiated middle ground. As it >: stands right now, it is out and out warfare because those in power >: hold all three branches, are far too many of them willing to mix their >: religious beliefs as dogmatic public policy without real negotiation, >: and simply refuse to provide even the slightest measure of respect to >: any of their opponents. Ever. >: >: This isn't even close to a healthy political process. It's, in fact, >: the manifest example of politics on its death bed. And that does NOT >: bode well. As I said, politics is about finding common values and where material differences exist to find sincerely negotiated compromises in order to avoid what our founders considered the ultimate resort when all other gov't mechanisms fail -- civil war. The purpose, ultimately, of political discourse is to avoid the kinds of civil unrest and ultimately murderous violence and war that occurs when people feel that is the only way to secure some measure of control and justice in their own lives. To achieve that excellent purpose of politics, those from different viewpoints must have enough respect for each other to engage in the kinds of meaningful communications that allow them to secure real compromise, if changing their minds from convincing evidence isn't to be found. When that level of respect has left, or when the parties have no intentions at all of negotiating in good faith, then the system cannot secure its purpose and people are left to find other means. Religious belief, as a personal matter, is entirely fine. And religious belief as a matter of it informing your understanding of morality and ethics is also fine. And when you apply that to your voting, that is also just fine. Each of us must find and use what we value in our own lives to help inform us about our participation in a larger community. Organized religious belief is fine, as well, so long as it is not a material part of governance. This is the separation of church and state, much talked about in the US. The reason for this is as I mentioned before, that religious beliefs are a matter of faith and unshown belief, not a matter of evidence. One cannot _negotiate_ that belief away nor will one accept evidence to dispel it and then shuck it. When organized religion enters the political marketplace, it enters just as a spilled box of wrenches enters an open and functioning gear box. It brings it all to a halt. The issue of abortion here in the US is manifest evidence of this fact. Personal, individual religious views aren't going to change on this subject. Nor should they. But when organized an |