Jump to content

Ten oz

Senior Members
  • Posts

    5551
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    17

Everything posted by Ten oz

  1. @ MigL, I was responding to "I think the American administration acually expected to find WMDs in Iraq" by explaining why I felt they did not really care one way another. I think we agree. As for a "master plan" I don't pretend to know what the administrations full motives were for misleading the public. Perhaps we shall never know.
  2. I do not believe the administration believed or cared about WMDs in Iraq. For starters following United Nation Security Council Resolution 1441 inspectors were in Iraq investigating the WMD claims. Lead investigators and members of the U.S. administration repeatedly asked for time to complete their inspections and were overridden. Within a few months of going into Iraq the UN inspectors release a reports indicating Iraq did not have WMDs. Secondly in the build up to war the administration repeatedly mentioned that Saddam had used WMDs on his own people. While true the argument was rather frivolous since A - the United States had supplied Iraq those weapons and B - those events had taken place prior to the first Iraq war Desert Storm (90' - 91'). So if those crimes weren't bad enough to remove Saddam during Desert Storm how could they possibly justify removing him a decade later? Not only had Saddam already used WMDs ahead of Desert Storm but he also had invaded Kuwait and scud bombed Israel. Yet he was left in power. Then in 2003 and over a decaded of Saddam being marginalized it was suddenly critical to go back in even as the United Nations advocated for inspections? 9/11 changed everything was the slogan. The United States could no longer wait for bad actors to act. Preemptive messures were in order. Good slogan but why Iraq? Al Quada had a much greater influence in Pakistan than Iraq and we know for a fact that Pakistan in a NUCLEAR power. As recently as 1998 the Pakistan Gov't detonated several nuclear devices in the Ras Koh Hills as a show of force to India. So if the plan was to preemptively get WMDs away from countries who housed terrorists I think the country where Osama Bin Laden was eventually killed was a more obvious place to start.
  3. @ Woldhnd, I wrote "social aid" in my post not Marxism or even socialism. As for the illegitimate black birth stuff being linked to welfare that is a total red herring. "There are 2.3 million Americans in prison or jail. The U.S. has 5 percent of the world’s population but 25 percent of its prisoners. One in three black men can expect to spend time in prison. There are 2.7 million minors with an incarcerated parent. The imprisonment rate has grown by more than 400 percent since 1970." http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-imprisoners-dilemma/ Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and left office in 1969. Beginning in 1970 the United States has experienced a 400% increase in imprisonment. Blacks making up a disproportionate number of those imprisoned. No country imprisons their citizens at a higher rate. I think it can be argued that this massive increase in imprisonment happened in part as a means to subtly continue segregation in many ways and is a major driving factor in any number of negative statistical trends in todays black communities. Blacks living in South Africa during Apatheid experienced a lower imprisonment rate that blacks living today in the United States. "The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that, in 2010, the incarceration rate for black men in all of the country’s jails and prisons was 4,347 people per 100,000. For whites, the rate was 678 people per 100,000. America imprisons people far more in general than comparable countries. Among the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development nations, the United States is the clear leader with an incarceration rate about two and half times higher than the second place country, Chile." "Most of the arrests and imprisonment in South Africa were for pass laws offences," Worger told PunditFact. "The incarceration rate in South Africa in 1984 -- the midst of apartheid -- was 440 persons imprisoned per 100,000 population. Blacks comprised around 94 percent of those incarcerated." http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/dec/11/nicholas-kristof/kristof-us-imprisons-blacks-rates-higher-south-afr/
  4. I think welfare as a dueling example of both sides being emotional is a false equivalency. The whole modernized western world practices various forms of social aid. It is provably successful. The counter approach of sink or swim & personal responsibility has no successful examples in the current times. One is more logical than the other once emotions are placed aside. Reagan's success is regularly overstated. His average approval rating was actually lower than Bill Clinton's and H.W. Bush. It is almost religious in many ways the way conservative media has cultivated Reagan's legacy akin to that of a prophet. Reagan was not as conservative, popular, traditional, religious, or etc as partisans insist. Do liberals constantly remind people how bad previous eras were or simply attempt to learn from mistakes? When I insist my people where eye and hearing protection when in industrial environments am I thumbing my nose at the past when people worked without such protections or taking advantage of knowledge gained? As for Jane Fonda she was not an elected political figure. Insisting that she represented liberals is simply guilt by association. She was no ones other than her own advocate. Hauling her out as an example of liberalism in actions is useful as if I dragged out Timothy McVeigh as an example of conservatism.
  5. @ TAR, the families I named each have had multiple family members who have held public office. W. Bush being amongst them but not the lone example.
  6. I think this thought could drive enough debate for its own thread. So I won't pull off topic by addressing plumbers, store owners, movie producers, and etc. As this relates to politics and your thought about an elite class we have examples : the Kennedy, Bush, Roosevelt, and Rockefeller families quickly come to mind. Within each family there has been successful leaders but there has also been terrible ones who probably could never have even been elected dog catcher if not for their pedigrees. I don't see any consistantcy in leadership ability in these dynasties.
  7. Passions are raised when racism or islamophobia is brought into the conversation but sometimes it seems unavoidable to mention. In these discussion about ISIS or radical Islamic terrorism there seems to be a persistent view where large groups of people are lumped together. Whether it is arguing that Islam itself is a violent religion and thusly implying all it's followers are combatants to some extent or simply lumping the entire Middle East together as a singular place the West either is or should be at war with. There is a lot of generalizing and it seems driven by cultural differences more so than facts. Why denounce the whole Middle East? What does your anger towards ISIS have to do with Turkey? What about Jordan who is the fighting ISIS? Why should we hate them all?
  8. @ Overtone, I think the benefit to individuals is fairly obviously. I am asking if it benefits society as a whole. I think on a certian level the reason why a persons sex life (for example) can be used against them is because so few people are honest or open. Fear of being labeled negatively, made fun of, disappointing their family, or worse motivates people to stay quiet or lie. People pretend that societal norms like masterbation or sex before marriage are uncommon things mostly done by bad people and later regretted. We mostly all know that isnt true but say nothing to avoid being impugned. In a society where all walls were see through such distortions wouldn't as be possible. Of course that would come at the experience of individuals who are not interested in being examples. This is just a question.i am not advocating for everyone to have a camera in their bedrooms. I am just wondering if this is an area where our personal needs are holding society back or vice versa.
  9. So you don't think apathy played a role? Segregation in the south went on for 75yrs. I believe the majority of the people in the United States disagreed with segregation but were unwilling to confront the issue. Eventually when enough leaders fostered the courage to protest in the face of violence was the issue resolved. Thousands gave their lives but society as a whole is now better off and could have been so sooner if more people outside of the South had been willing to speak up sooner. So while confrontation avoidance is a natural thing for an individual the question is more directed toward the greater good. Does it help society? Is it beneficial society when racism, climate denial, religious law, etc is placated by those who know better simply to avoid arguement? If I believe something to be true yet can only say so in private or secretly isn't that a signal of a problem greater than my personal need for conflict avoidance? @ Phi for All, thank you for your response. Even with the privacy provided us by screen names I doubt many would feel comfortable discussing some of the things you addressed. In the face of the many problems society has that people attempt to ignore and downplay we rely on those of us with the courage of honesty. If must be very hard for women to come forward and speak about sexual harassment in the work place knowing that they will be labelled negatively and judged. For a grown man to come forward and speak about molestations experienced in church as a youth. Unfortunately many keep their silence and issues stay unaddressed for decades. Bill Cosby's seemingly multi decade reign of terror as a recent high profile example. Apparently lots of people knew but chose to handle it privately while others kept secrets for Cosby. I had considered including intellectual property in this discussion but chose against it as I thought it may derail the conversation. That many would not view it as related like I do. So I am glad you spoke to that. Yet am hesitant to elaborate too much. I think Intellectual property is an involved enough thing to support its own thread and could possibly shallow this one. What I will say is that all discoveries made, all knowledge, is accumulative. Sharing knowledge and building on what others invented is how humans got to where we are. So no one has invented anything in a vacuum and I knowledge ownership merely slows the process of our accumulative intelligence. We error towards individual recognition and wealth over the progression of humanity.
  10. This is an entirely seperate conversation. I will simply say I completely disagree and leave it at that. Could we kill without tools, of course. Humans do not require large game to survive. There are people in this world today whose many diet consists of things like rice and grasshopper. Things like crabs and small reptiles can be killed with our hands. Referencing back to our (human) dexterity we can do things many predators can not. For example a tiger can not swim out in to a lake or river, dive down several feel to the bottom, and stick its paw into a hole and put out a fish or crab. Humans can. Having arms and hands allows humans to do things that can not be done with legs and paws. Would predators just kill us with their superior speed, depends. Wolves and bears can't climb. So a tree or steep hill face would be enough to successfully escape their them. They also don't swim well as humans so a water escape would be another option. Large cats would be the most dangerous. So I guess where your theoretical less intelligent human is attempting to live matters. Different areas of the world have different apex predators. Consider this; humans evolved from smaller less intelligent hominids. So the answer to your question in many ways is self evident.
  11. On a certian level didn't people keeping their own views private allow those strong minority movements (Nazi, KKK ) to grow in the first place? Confrontation avoidance for many people seems to trump political or ethical views as they pertain to strangers. The personal need to fly below the radar in many circumstances can hurt society at large.
  12. @ The Tactical Strategist, humans can actually traverse a lot of terrian and swim very well. Humans have good dexterity and can climb, dig, crawl, run, jump, lift, push, etc. So compared to many other animals we actual have many advantages. We also can survive of a variety of diets. Fruits and insects or seeweed and mussels if need be. When you say without our intelligence to what degree are you referencing?
  13. That would benefit an individual lawyer but does nothing for society as a whole. There are many obvious personal things to be gained from privacy, secrecy, and lying but I am wondering what good it they do the entire human race?
  14. Clearly more honesty in that part of the world would be helpful. Playing devils advocate I do see some obvious flaws in my logic. In previous eras people were more honest about their thoughts and it lead to overt racism and misogyny. So there might be some benefits to privacy, secrecy, and lying I just haven't been able to identify yet.
  15. @ Fiveworlds, I don't disagree with you are saying. I rather regret even mentioning Assange or the Sony hacks. I am not looking to have a discussion about those things directly. Phi for All responded to the broader idea I am trying to discuss. Yet surely you have done or said many things you'd be ashamed of. We all have. In our culture it is common place to hide our heads in the sand and allow others to be shamed or held accountable by society for things that are far more common than is comfortable to admit like masterbation, eating disorders, homosexuality, domestic abuse, racism, sexually transmitted diseases, addiction, and etc, etc. All the privacy we experience in handling embarressment enables society to deny the real magnitude things. What is considered normal (or even worse virtuous) is actually abnormal. Then those who have the misfortune of beig outed as normal are persecuted by our society in denial. Teenage girs who have sex labelled sluts and people with same sex attraction labelled perverts by the same people that find nothing adnormal about religious vows of celibacy. So there is an obvious benifit to business and certian individuals but what about society as a whole? Does society benifit from allowing business to keep secrets that help enable greater profits? Does society benifit from individuals keeping good things to themselves? This is a tough one. Can any politician win office without lying? Is it better to have the atheist leader who lies about being religious to win votes or the true believer that believes God's law trumps democracy? I think in a world where there is privacy and secrecy lying may possibly be a necessary evil?
  16. @ Fiveworlds, on some level wouldn't that change the behavior of those looking to do bad if they know who was observing and when? Also sometimes agencies are looking to connect the dots. Reading my emails to find someone else who may have spoken to the person they are after. Too much openness may close that pathway off. At the same time I do see a problem with society not knowing what it's government is doing in realtime. We tend to find out the truth after the fact, if at all. That lag has cost more lives than any leak every has.
  17. My thoughts on the following are not entirely flushed out so please bare with.. Is there any value for society as a whole in privacy, secrecy, and lying? Following the Sony hacks many people felt due to the private nature of the emails Amy Pascal and others should be absolved publically of criticism. Following Julian Assange's wiki leaks the argument was made that such breaks in secrecy endangered people. And of course wealth individuals and corperations feel it is their free speech right to out right lie and climate science and the environment. Is any of that true? Sony Hacks were happened during a time when across the United States minority were protesting unequal treatment. A national debate was being had about whether or not racism still existed in a meaningful way. Some of the hacked emails showed high level managers of a large multinational company dicussing race in a manner that would never be done publically. Is there value in society knowing the truth or does the individual's right to privacy trump that? Millions have been killed or displaced in the global were on terror. Errors have been made and people have been mislead. Jullian Assange exposed some of that. However by doing so arguably endangered forces still in the field. Which value is greater: society knowing the truth of war or the security that secrecy helps create? As for Climate Change denial; when is a lie just lie? There is differences in opinion and then there is just straight up denial because one party or the other doesn't want to live with the conclusions of the truth. Is there any benifit? I am not on a soapbox. I honestly am not sure how I feel about these examples. I would not want my emails read nor do I want other nations to get a strategic advantage over my country do to leaks. However both are self serving. Perhaps society would be better off if it were completely open. Then again such openess would create advantages for the worst amongst us.
  18. @ Minaras, life could theoretically be nothing but a dream too but it is far more rational to focus on what is observable, measurable, and repeatable. Light as an objective observer is rather nebulous. Seems as though you have an idea but no work. You haven't figured an experiment to test your idea. As such it is premature to advocate for it.
  19. I totally agree! In addition to your post not only do we throw rocks like apes but we process threats as primitively too. In the Western Europe and Northern America radical Islamic terror doesn't even register in terms of things with a moderate likelihood of killing the average person. Any number of daily activities are significantly more dangerous. In the United States about 160 children choke to death every year for example. That is more deaths per year from choking than all the deaths by Islamic terror in the decade following 9/11 in United States. Yet our response to Islamic Terror is overwhelming. Trillions of dollars worth of debt and hundreds of thousands (many report over a million) dead civilian casualties of wars. We can't be bothered to help provide clean drinking water to millions of children in Africa but we must keep our commitments to level whole cities in rural regions of the Middle East. Because after all that is how peace and democracy is fostered? It is primitive behavior that lacks any resemblance of rationality muchless proportionality.
  20. This is entirely a matter of perspective and history will ultimately judge us differently than we judge ourselves. The same people who advocated "all men are created equal" owned slaves yet considered themselves more tolerant than the monarchy they sought to replace. We have experienced progress or at least effort by many towards progess. However can you imagine anyone needing "lessons" that males, specifically white males, deserve equal treatment? The very fact that many still must teach respect for women and minorities speaks volumes about where we still are at in society. There is no question that burning anyone alive is outrageous. Any society that identifies as moral must be repulsed by such offenses behavior. Unfortunately the same could be said for narco terrorist beheading people and filling mass graves, African warlords kidnapping/rapping villages of girls, and any number of extreme human atrocities that happen globally. Why must Islamic radicals get so much attention? They have not killed more people. Viewing this entirely sober and with all human life mattering equally in mind why is Islamic terror at the top of the global consciousnesses must act on list?
  21. I don't know that I consider Al gore or Neil Young trying to shine a light on climate change wingnut behavior. I also don't think Bonu trying to help starving people in Africa is wingnut behavior. Perhaps you have better examples? Something where liberals are advocating against scientific facts or for things that will hurt people. Obviously there is a fringe on bothsides. For example most white supremacists vote conservative. I do not believe it is fair to say white supremacist beliefs are prominent amongst all conservatives. I don't think anyone here is conflating the fringe right with the mainstream though? Please educate me if I am mistaken. So majority vs majority what do the two sides advocate?
  22. People continue to believe in God for the same reason they continue to speak the language they were born with, eat the diet they were raised on, wear the clothes fashionable to their region, and so on. Some people break the cycle. Some people make the concious chioce to change their diets or decide a different style of dress would be more advantageous for them; just as some people become Athiests. The majority doesn't change though. In terms of culture and tradition people are exactly what they are raised to be.
  23. Candidates don't change the demographics. Pretty much across the board every voting demo (black, white, Latino, Asian, female, gay, jewish, etc) votes the same margins. Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and Obama all got +\- 38% of the white vote and 90% of the black vote for example. All 4 were very different candidates. What has changed over time is the share of the overall vote each specific demo has. Given the demographics and historical tends it is highly unlikely McCain wins regardless of who his running mate was. Candidates don't swing the demographics. http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_12.html As Overtone pointed out celebrities are allowed premier positions within conservative circles. Not just that but what are pundits like Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbraugh, Ann Coulture, Megan Kelly, Michael Savage, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham, tec, etc, etc, ad nauseam other than celebrities? There job is hosting radio shows, TV shows, writing op-eds, and anything else that gets them attention. At least Bonu bothers to sings for a living, lol. There has to be a balance between trying to change the status qou and using high emission things like planes to travel and get the word out. If Gore, Young, or Cameron chose to live in tree huts and not use any energy that produced CO2 do you honestly believe that would have a bigger impact than what they are currently doing? Celebrities don't tend to be the ones forming the large superpacs to ensure opinions are treated with more value than common peoples.
  24. Conservative media figures haves done a good job eliminating the idea of a political middle and pushing Republicans further to the right over the last 30yrs. As a result anything that is not conservative is labelled liberal. By that loose definition universities, main stream media, and all forms of disseminating information without touting conservative values are liberal. Humans are compromising by nature. The middle always seems like fair ground. The current power structure within conservative politics understands this and manipulates by asking for many times over what they honestly want or believe. That way middle ground leans right. By current standards Nixon, Ford, Bob Dole, and many of Republican leaders of old are basically Democrats.
  25. Lectures and debates on YouTube are terrific but unless you are reading and educating yourself how do you know what's true? Confidence not facts often wins debates for the average uniformed viewer and a professional setting can make a lecture appear more legitimate than it is. You need to set a bar. To have a standard. In science it is peer reviewed research
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.