Paris attacks

[Willie71]

Tar, people look down on those you say you associate with because they, in general, support candidates that don't believe in science, don't believe in evolution, believe they have a role to play in the end times prophecies in the Middle East, and promote fictions such as trickle down economics to people too daft to see what is right in front of them. Your " associations" are playing by the fascist's rule book (Trump), or are so detached from reality (Carson) that the international community wouldn't be able to stop laughing if it wasn't so frightening what these people would do if elected. Runaway corporatism, wealth inequality, and the highest incarceration rates and gun murder rates in the developed world do little to show people that the republicans aren't "deficient." Rational people cannot believe what the republicans promote. It's impossible. Some get around this by convincing themselves in a delusional fog that their party doesn't really stand for these things.

[Acme]

This is why it is actually folly to think you have an objective view and understanding of what everybody wants, and a clear idea of how everybody wants to be, and how they wish to conduct their lives, if you are not them. And why you have to together fight against those people who obviously do not want to do it your way by associating with a team that is doing it the way that works for you.

...

This is a prime example of sloppy reasoning. The study I cited is objective and were it the liberals with all the defects that's what the study results would show. No such showing emerged. Someone here even started a thread 'Are liberals mildly insane' (or something to that effect) and no such scientific evidence such as for conservatives was forthcoming there.

[tar]

Acme,

 

I did not participate in that other thread. My objection to the quote you made would have been the suggestion that following authority was done by certain people, not like the majority that would never think of following authority. Such a position makes no sense, and is not backed up in reality where, just as I am arguing, EVERYBODY goes by the rules of the group that they associate with, or some combination of the various groups that they associate with. No one is immune from this. I would have argued against this conclusion, that the majority of us do not think like that, since its so obvious that the 85 percent are led by the 15. (or whatever leader/follower breakdown you would like to make)

 

Regards, TAR

[Acme]

Acme,

 

I did not participate in that other thread. My objection to the quote you made would have been the suggestion that following authority was done by certain people, not like the majority that would never think of following authority. Such a position makes no sense, and is not backed up in reality where, just as I am arguing, EVERYBODY goes by the rules of the group that they associate with, or some combination of the various groups that they associate with. No one is immune from this. I would have argued against this conclusion, that the majority of us do not think like that, since its so obvious that the 85 percent are led by the 15. (or whatever leader/follower breakdown you would like to make)

 

Regards, TAR

More sloppy reasoning. If you didn't participate or read the thread, you're in no position to pass judgment on it. Your post reads as incomprehensible babbling.

[tar]

Willie71,

 

Understood, but the argument can not be that most rational people are scientists, AND that the majority of people are rational unless it is also true that most people are scientists which is not the case.

 

If the top 15 percent of the country in intelligence, includes high percentages of atheists and scientists, I would not be surprised, but you cannot then argue from this position that people in the top 15 percent includes the group "most of us".

 

I am trying to associate myself with everybody, not with an elite.

 

Regards, TAR

Acme,

 

I only responded to the quote from the thread.

 

Regards, TAR

[Acme]

...I am trying to associate myself with everybody, not with an elite.

 

Regards, TAR

Acme,

 

I only responded to the quote from the thread.

 

Regards, TAR

But you said -and I quote- 'One of the reasons it is hard for me to take your raves against the republicans, and WASPS and males and people that live in the suburbs and the military and the CIA and big oil and religious people and the like, is because I associate with those groups.' That isn't everybody.

 

I think you only responded to respond. Makes no difference what is said, you have to continue to spin your wheels to paraphrase your words in another recent thread. Facts be damned and full speed ahead. Good grief.

[DimaMazin]

Tar, people look down on those you say you associate with because they, in general, support candidates that don't believe in science, don't believe in evolution, believe they have a role to play in the end times prophecies in the Middle East, and promote fictions such as trickle down economics to people too daft to see what is right in front of them. Your " associations" are playing by the fascist's rule book (Trump), or are so detached from reality (Carson) that the international community wouldn't be able to stop laughing if it wasn't so frightening what these people would do if elected. Runaway corporatism, wealth inequality, and the highest incarceration rates and gun murder rates in the developed world do little to show people that the republicans aren't "deficient." Rational people cannot believe what the republicans promote. It's impossible. Some get around this by convincing themselves in a delusional fog that their party doesn't really stand for these things.

 

The Islamic idlers are the problem of France. Donkeys shouldn't increase Islamic idlers in USA then they will be good.

Edited November 29, 2015 by DimaMazin

[tar]

Acme,

 

It is not everybody but it is the majority of the nation.

 

 

Regards, TAR

It is not logical to say that I both represent the majority of the nation, and am acting contrary to the the way a majority of us should act.

Unless you are arguing that we should all do what the top 15 percent of intelligent rational people say we should do, which would be pretty much listening to authority figures without using your own judgement.

Edited November 29, 2015 by tar

[Acme]

Acme,

It is not everybody but it is the majority of the nation.

Nonsense. You can give no citation to support such a claim.

 

Regards, TAR

It is not logical to say that I both represent the majority of the nation, and am acting contrary to the the way a majority of us should act.

Again, you cannot support the claim that conservatives are in the majority. I say that you use illogical thinking.

 

Unless you are arguing that we should all do what the top 15 percent of intelligent rational people say we should do, which would be pretty much listening to authority figures without using your own judgement.

I made no such argument nor implied it. Again your reasoning is sloppy. I am arguing that you have associated yourself with folks that scientific studies have shown to have deficits in reasoning and that is why -along with your own demonstrations- you are perceived here as having reasoning deficits. Here as in numerous other threads you persist even when your errors have been pointed out. Moreover, the more errors pointed out to you, the more persistent you get. (I forget the name of the folks that studied this type of behavior; perhaps someone will interject on that.)

 

As I have no expectation that you will not continue with your political gish gallops, I'll excuse myself until there's something worthwhile to respond to.

[tar]

Acme,

 

If you add up republicans, and WASPS, and religious people,males and people that live in the suburbs and the military and the CIA and big oil and religious people and the like, you would get a sum larger than 150 million. I didn't cite anything because it seemed pretty straight forward. I looked at all the people I knew about and more of them fit one of those categories than fit none of them.

 

Besides, defending myself is only because I am attacked. I did not ask for a reference to a thread I did not read nor was the thread's pertinence to the Paris attacks discussed. Just my political leanings, related to my track record.

 

The only tie in to the Paris Attack I can see here is that there is an argument that we should not act like we know what is best for somebody else, and should let them live their own lives, without being controlled by an elite.

 

Regards, TAR

But if we are to leave other people alone, then we can not simultaneously try to help them, so if we try and help them and they do not want our help, then we are doing it, for our own reasons, or because we don't think they are smart enough to handle the job of taking care of their own business, or they are not doing in the way that they should, according to us. In all the above cases there is politics involved and authority and who it is that you are responsible to, and how you would like to see the world go.

 

If you argue for leaving people alone, you wind up not living up to your responsibilities to fight against evil.

 

Evil only exists when good men do nothing.

[Willie71]

Willie71,Understood, but the argument can not be that most rational people are scientists, AND that the majority of people are rational unless it is also true that most people are scientists which is not the case.If the top 15 percent of the country in intelligence, includes high percentages of atheists and scientists, I would not be surprised, but you cannot then argue from this position that people in the top 15 percent includes the group "most of us".I am trying to associate myself with everybody, not with an elite.Regards, TARAcme,I only responded to the quote from the thread.Regards, TAR

How about "most rational people ACCEPT science?"

 

The US is the only industrialized nation with that quantity of science deniers. It may be normal in the US, but it isn't anywhere else (in the first world.)

[DimaMazin]

How about "most rational people ACCEPT science?"

 

The US is the only industrialized nation with that quantity of science deniers. It may be normal in the US, but it isn't anywhere else (in the first world.)

Yes. That thing is more useful than Russian or Islamic idiocy. Still France doesn't understand this completely. France should less cooperate with Russia and less to love Moslems.

[overtone]

One of the reasons it is hard for me to take your raves against the republicans, and WASPS and males and people that live in the suburbs and the military and the CIA and big oil and religious people and the like, is because I associate with those groups.

I have never "raved" against males, WASPS, the military, the CIA, religious people in general, people who live in the suburbs in general, etc.

 

I haven't even "raved" against Republicans in general, or big oil - that is your interpretation of what in my posts is simply descriptions and accounts.

 

Where do you get that bs? It isn't from reading my posts.

 

 

My thinking is not erroneous, and misguided, it is structured by my associations and my understanding of things, from my point of view.

Your thinking keeps leading you to posts like that - that I have "raved" against males, and WASPS, and so forth, - which have no apparent source except in some screwball reflex of your thinking.

 

When you keep saying things that are flagrantly not so about people's posting, especially when they come from out of the blue like that (WASPS?), we notice. How can we not?

 

Evil only exists when good men do nothing.

It also exists when mistaken men do wrong for bad reasons. If you set out to do wrong for bad reasons, how are you a good man? You can only get credit for good intentions at most once or twice - after that, you are expected to know better. To be good men.

 

It is not logical to say that I both represent the majority of the nation, and am acting contrary to the the way a majority of us should act.

Yes, it is. It is completely logical, and makes a lot of sense in the US right now - for example, with regard to foreign Islamic terrorism vs domestic Christian terrorism. Edited November 29, 2015 by overtone

[DimaMazin]

 

Yes, it is. It is completely logical, and makes a lot of sense in the US right now - for example, with regard to foreign Islamic terrorism vs domestic Christian terrorism.

 

Terrorists don't fight against terrorists otherwise they aren't. Terrorists fight against citizens.

[tar]

Overtone,

 

Where do I get this stuff?

 

 

iNow had a thread that was entitled something like "how does religion hijack the neurocortical functions of the brain". In it I learned that we have a section of the brain that develops around the age of 3 or 4 that allows us to put ourselves in someone else's shoes. This area of the brain is responsible for allowing us to converse with unseen others, and also is active while we make moral decisions.

 

To this, a lot of our thinking and conversing with others is actually happening in our own brains, not out in the open, where the other can participate. I have, in the many threads I have read where you and I tangle, developed a model of you, in my brain. Crude and filled with errors, and modified by you being "like" my aunt in this way, or like my sister in that way, or like a poster I used to argue with on Guardian talk who was filled with anti-American rhetoric, in that way, or like my father in this regard, etc. My image of you, and who I lump you in with, is "where I get this stuff". I can have an argument with you and you don't even know it. I don't even need you around. I can have a conversation with an unseen other.

 

But to the Paris attacks, we all have the ability to put ourselves in other people's shoes and think we know what its like to be the other, and draw conclusions as to another person's motivations. We are likely to be pretty close in some cases because we are all human and we use language that has meaning to communicate with each other, but we all are likely to label people and build a false image of them, that is probably incomplete. Maybe quite accurate, and maybe wildly off target. People have images of other people that may or may not be true.

 

When we see ourselves in others, we tend to associate with those people. When we see someone who wants to hurt us, we tend to associate that person with evil things.

 

If you and I met on the street we would be liable to nod a greeting.

 

If on the other hand, you tell me how evil the U.S. is, how stupid the Republicans are, and how misguided all my beliefs are, I am liable to think you mean it, and liable to adjust my image of you, the model that I converse with, that unseen overtone, in that direction.

 

If someone shoots up a concert or a clinic, I am liable to associate evil with that person, his ideology, his race, his mother and father, his country, his religion...etc. And I am liable to be guilty of not getting it right.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited November 29, 2015 by tar

[Ten oz]

Ten Oz,You say we shouldn't get bent out of shape if a terrorist shoots up a concert, but we should get bent out of shape if a terrorist shoots up an abortion clinic?We don't talk about addressing the reasons people are against the clinics, we don't blame the abortion rights activists for causing the problem. So our internal politics are not a good argument for why we should excuse the terrorists for being justified in their actions because we caused the problem.

 

Where did I say we should do nothing or excuse terrorism? When Timothy Mcveigh dropped a building killing hundreds simply arresting all those directly involved was a reasonable response. Yet when Islamic terrorists are involved merely catching those responsible is treated as akin to doing nothing. The United States and Europe are majority White Christian. We all understand White Christian culture, its attitudes, and beliefs. When White Christians do terrible things we intrinsically know that all White Christians aren't bad, that all are not a threat. Our familiarity with it provides comfort. Same is not true for Arab Muslims. We do not understand the culture, attitudes, and beliefs. So when Arab Muslims do terrible things we error on the side that all may be a threat. We do not trust ourselves to tell the good from the bad. As a result we respond far more heavy handed.

As I asked before; can you name something we (USA) have done in response to Islamic terror that has been beneficial? We have created the Department of Homeland security, passed the patriot act, Tortured, invaded two countries, armed rebels in Syria, and etc, etc, etc. What can you point to and say "that has work, that needed to be done"? You can't provide such an example yet argue that action is needed. What action? Which country can we bomb or leader can we dispose that will guarantee no more Islamic terror? If we turn all the refugees away and put boots on the ground in Syria will that do the trick; will terrorism be defeated?

[DimaMazin]

If we turn all the refugees away and put boots on the ground in Syria will that do the trick; will terrorism be defeated?

You + the refugees - Tar = weak folk

That is better when Moslems are weak.

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

When we went after the internal terrorists, we had law enforcement officials at every governmental level on our side. When we went after Bin Laden to bring him to justice, we had the Taliban in the way and sleeper cells within our own country.

 

Paris today has to close its borders and get suspicious of radical muslims because they have a major global warming conference coming up.

 

Coordination between countries and the sharing of intelligence is required to fight this particular threat. This creates a different situation than fighting an internal threat.

 

Let us say for instance that we had not gone after Saddam. Would the Baathist supported caliphate have emerged earlier? How can we know? How do we tell how effective or ineffective the patriot act has been in preventing incidents like Paris?

 

iNow suggests that we should not worry about a few buildings coming down, and a few people being killed...less than are killed on our highways, but there are situations where we make laws and reform systems, based on just a few incidents.

 

I don't know where you said we should excuse terrorism, it might have been still my reaction to overtone using the word justifiable and the group that shot up the concert, in the same breath, and the conflation of white Christian terror in this country with radical Muslim terror in Paris that made me think you were arguing that I had no right to try to bring the Caliph to justice, until I eliminated racism from my own heart.

 

I think I can still make the distinction between good and evil.

 

Even if others don't think I have the right borders drawn.

 

And currently France is doing everything that you say I have no example to show effective in making us safer...and they have stopped at least one bad event from occurring.

 

Regards, TAR

and while we are talking about internal threats and enemies and NOT fearing whole groups, consider Hilary's answer to who she sees as her enemies

 

if a leader is afraid of their own citizens, you get Saddam killing Shia and Kurds, and Maliki killing Sunni, and Assad killing the rebels

ANDERSON COOPER: Which enemy that you made during your political career are you most proud of?

 

CLINTON: Well, in addition to the NRA, the health insurance companies, the drug companies, the Iranians; probably the Republicans.

Edited November 29, 2015 by tar

[iNow]

iNow suggests that we should not worry about a few buildings coming down, and a few people being killed...less than are killed on our highways...

Sorry, but no. That's not what I said, and while I know you're well intentioned, I have to agree with others about your challenges with basic reading comprehension and the ability to reply in a way that is focused and not peripheral to the actual points being discussed.

 

I don't know where you said we should excuse terrorism...

Probably because he never said that and this is another thing you've made-up / miscomprehended.

 

... and the conflation of white Christian terror in this country with radical Muslim terror in Paris...

This is one of the core questions you seem to be evading: Why is that a conflation? In what ways are they different enough to warrant different responses and approaches? Why are the acts of a small few sufficient to cast shade on the entire group for one but the acts of a small few appropriately recognized as the exception for the other?

[tar]

iNow,

 

I don't have so much a reading comprehension problem, as I have a tendency to overthink the implications of a statement based on just a fact or two, and the fact might be a typing error, or a bad choice of words, but I take it, as I would "a look" if I was with a person that I am listening to.

 

"This is one of the core questions you seem to be evading: Why is that a conflation? In what ways are they different enough to warrant different responses and approaches? Why are the acts of a small few sufficient to cast shade on the entire group for one but the acts of a small few appropriately recognized as the exception for the other?"

 

I already answered your first question, that handling an internal criminal you have your own law enforcement community to help you, where as handing a criminal that is outside your borders, you have to get agreement with the other place's law enforcement, violate their sovereignty, declare war, or "let it go".

In terms of the second, I will use your highway death example to prove a flip to your question. Why should we get all flustered and reform the law enforcement establishment because a couple people on PCP fight the police and get shot? The numbers are so small, we should not change the course of the ocean liner, because a couple of people fall overboard.

 

Regards, TAR

besides, if the KKK is like ISIL in this example, then the Sunni's are like the Republican party and Maliki is like Obama

 

How closely would you like to conflate the two issues?

Edited November 29, 2015 by tar

[overtone]

If on the other hand, you tell me how evil the U.S. is, how stupid the Republicans are, and how misguided all my beliefs are, I am liable to think you mean it, and liable to adjust my image of you, the model that I converse with, that unseen overtone, in that direction.

That does not explain where you come up with supposed postings of mine that I have not made, assigning to me opinions I have not expressed and viewpoints I do not share.

 

These are matters of fact. You are getting the facts wrong.

 

 

If someone shoots up a concert or a clinic, I am liable to associate evil with that person, his ideology, his race, his mother and father, his country, his religion...etc. And I am liable to be guilty of not getting it right.

It is possible to get it right, however. There are well founded beliefs, accurate assessments, informed and well-reasoned opinions; these things exist.

 

And it is possible to form an opinion (right or wrong) without denying physical reality, or getting the facts screwed up. In most people's judgments, it is better.

 

Let us say for instance that we had not gone after Saddam. Would the Baathist supported caliphate have emerged earlier?

1) No. So unlikely as to be realistically impossible. 2) There is no "Baathist supported caliphate". 3) We were "going after Saddam" long before the Iraq invasion that set up ISIL. "Going after Saddam" was not the issue.

 

How can we know?

By paying attention to the facts on the ground in the region.

 

 

How do we tell how effective or ineffective the patriot act has been in preventing incidents like Paris?

By paying attention to the employment of it.

 

 

 

besides, if the KKK is like ISIL in this example, then the Sunni's are like the Republican party and Maliki is like Obama

You are confusing religious sect with political Party. Why? Edited November 29, 2015 by overtone

[tar]

Overtone,

 

I agree, but you and I both assign motivations to the other that the other does not have. I am guilty sure. But you are as well.

 

This is important to realize in talking about the injustices that have occurred in the middle east. It is important to take into consideration, that it doesn't matter if you are right, if in insisting you are right you commit an injustice. Such is what fuels cycles of violence. It is not so important that the republicans are wrong and the democrats right or the Sunni are right and the Shiite wrong, or the Iranians right and the Zionists wrong.

 

What is important is that everybody agrees to live together and give the other party the benefit of the doubt.

 

As if somebody could just call "no backsies".

 

Earlier I think it was CharonY that suggested we not use playground mentality. I am thinking perhaps we are all still in the playground, and injustices are still hard to excuse. I remember a best friend, blood brother I had as a very young teen. We had a falling out and wrestled in a creek to exhaustion. We never were friends again and ran in different cliques. Which was hard to do in a summer community with only 24 cottages and just a handful of boys around my age. But our parents used to be close friends and play bridge and my sister was best friends with 'one of my friend's older sisters, and our families just didn't hang together after the fight. I couldn't even tell you what injustice I was guilty of or what he might have done to me. But such I think is like the playground of the middle east. Perhaps it is still the crusades, or maybe some line in the Koran. Who knows what started the mess. But for some reason the one family doesn't wish to play with the other, anymore.

 

Regards, TAR

[overtone]

I agree, but you and I both assign motivations to the other that the other does not have. I am guilty sure. But you are as well.

The topic was not "motivations", but expressed opinions and posting content.

 

I don't think I have assigned motivations to you, other than the roles played directly here by this or that item of posting content. Can you quote an example?

 

It is important to take into consideration, that it doesn't matter if you are right, if in insisting you are right you commit an injustice.

How does getting the facts straight commit injustice?

 

It is not so important that the republicans are wrong and the democrats right

Yes, it is. We live in a democracy. We are choosing our legislators and government policies. If we choose badly, we suffer the consequences.

 

What is important is that everybody agrees to live together and give the other party the benefit of the doubt.

Doubt about what? About physical fact, historical event, what happened and who did it?

Edited November 29, 2015 by overtone

[tar]

Overtone,

 

No, disagreement on the reasons for why somebody does a thing, and whether they are justified in doing what they did.

 

You said somewhere that the united states should pay reparations for causing harm in the middle east. I don't think it was easy to stop the hatred that existed over there, and the U.S. I thought was being courageous to stand up for civil rights and freedom.

 

You take a set of facts and see it one way, I see the same set of facts another. Disagreeing with your take, is not equivalent to ignoring facts.

 

For instance you are rather sure that the Invasion of Iraq by the coalition led by the U.S. and Great Britain was a mistake. But had a Shiite massacre occurred had we not invaded, it would also have been on the U.S. for NOT acting.

 

The question now though is not who is to blame for ISIL and who is to blame for Syria, and what actions caused the cell to attack the concert, the question is what should we do now.

 

Whose side are we on, and how much blood and money should we spend for what desired outcome?

 

Talk about that. And come up with a solution that does not include Republicans in the answer, before you continue to blame Republicans for the problem.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited November 29, 2015 by tar

[overtone]

No, disagreement on the reasons for why somebody does a thing, and whether they are justified in doing what they did.

I have not assigned motivations to you, then - we are agreed. So you will not post that any more.

 

and the U.S. I thought was being courageous to stand up for civil rights and freedom.

You don't know when or where that happened.

 

You take a set of facts and see it one way, I see the same set of facts another.

You do not see the same set of facts at all. You deny facts, and substitute imaginary situations and events.

 

For instance you are rather sure that the Invasion of Iraq by the coalition led by the U.S. and Great Britain was a mistake. But had a Shiite massacre occurred had we not invaded, it would also have been on the U.S. for NOT acting.

1) A Shiite massacre occurred as a result of the US invasion. Actual events carry more weight, with me, than stuff your imagination thinks might have happened if the world were a different place.

2) The US invasion was not motivated by a desire to prevent an imminent massacre of any Iraqis (or even lift the sanctions, which were killing Iraqi children by the tens of thousands. And it was a horrible disaster for everyone involved except the Iranians and maybe the Kurds. So it was a mistake, even if it prevented some alternative universe where bad things we weren't considering happened. Imaginary alternative universes do not justify avoidable disasters caused by bad things done for bad reasons in this one.

 

The question now though is not who is to blame for ISIL and who is to blame for Syria, and what actions caused the cell to attack the concert, the question is what should we do now.

We should stop doing bad, wrong, evil, ignorant, and self-destructive things - agreed? That requires understanding what we've been doing. How else do you propose to avoid repeating mistakes of the past?

 

If, say, you live in some bubblefantasy where Obama's troop withdrawal in Iraq led to the Paris bombings by allowing the formation of ISIL, you are badly crippled in any efforts to do anything in the real world.

 

Talk about that. And come up with a solution that does not include Republicans in the answer, before you continue to blame Republicans for the problem.

There may be no "solution" - W&Cheney's administration may have created a disaster we can't realistically do anything about right now. Also, there may easily be no solution that includes giving political power to the faction currently in control of the Republican Party in the US - to that or any other major problem the US faces as a country and a people.

 

That means we should not allow the current Republican Party to avoid accountability for the bad things it has done and is doing. Because if we do, we make it easier for those using it as their political force to do even more, gain even more power, etc.

Edited November 30, 2015 by overtone