Dumb people moments

[Peachy_Keen]

Hey, Wagner was a total nut, but people still listen to his music. Bernard may have some rather objectionable political affiliations, but we can look past that, and as Janice touched upon earlier, we can still be in his fan club. I'm glad you guys sorted things out nicely.  

[willcowskitz]

For the sake of "stirring things up", isn't that sort of "nazi-like" to say that they could do "jobs that do not need to be done", because that implies that if the job doesnt need to be done, then these members are not productive members of society, and that they serve no purpose, so why do they exist?

What disturbed me was the "...Then these members are not productive members of society, and that they serve no purpose, so why do they exist?" part.

If something's nazi, that conclusion is.


P.s.  Spatula, stop making into two posts what you could easily say in one. There also exists the "Modify" option. Your babble takes unnecessarily much space on the board because of multiple replies posted within minutes but which usually consist of needless remarks. </high communication>

[Spatula]

wouldn't it be interesting if we were all stuck on a desert island right now....

Free for ALL!

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!

Old school street fighter music starts up (guile's stage music I have in mind)

(I'm not provoking anything am I?)

What disturbed me was the "...Then these members are not productive members of society, and that they serve no purpose, so why do they exist?" part.

If something's nazi, that conclusion is.


P.s.  Spatula, stop making into two posts what you could easily say in one. There also exists the "Modify" option. Your babble takes unnecessarily much space on the board because of multiple replies posted within minutes but which usually consist of needless remarks. </high communication>

Then again this is the dumb stories post.. can't I be a part of the lesser society? Where is the free will.  I am sad.  I want to cry.  I'll cry myself a river, just watch me  

What a sad story.  I want to write a book.  

[bernhard]

Hey, Wagner was a total nut, but people still listen to his music. Bernard may have some rather objectionable political affiliations, but we can look past that, and as Janice touched upon earlier, we can still be in his fan club. I'm glad you guys sorted things out nicely.  

Er…  

I don’t recall ever mentioning if I had political affiliations or not, or even what they might have been.

I find amusing the idea of an “objectionable” political affiliation. Objectionable to whom? Are you proposing that everyone think alike? A single party perhaps? (I guess one hundred thousand lemmings cannot possibly be wrong.)

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[donjuan]

(sigh )  what IF we were all on a desert island?  xvimbi would be on my ass, coming up with one ellaborate euphemism after another to defend people who are suckered into buying sh1tty keyboards,  Bernhard and Janice would have little arguments about nazis, and willcowskitz is beating the crap out of Spatula for making two posts at once...
whoa...and "Rocky" music playing in the background...

[Antnee]

(sigh )  what IF we were all on a desert island?  xvimbi would be on my ass, coming up with one ellaborate euphemism after another to defend people who are suckered into buying sh1tty keyboards,  Bernhard and Janice would have little arguments about nazis, and willcowskitz is beating the crap out of Spatula for making two posts at once...
whoa...and "Rocky" music playing in the background...

Meanwhile, I would be off to the side...Practicing.

-Tony-

[Peachy_Keen]

Er&#8230;  

I don&#8217;t recall ever mentioning if I had political affiliations or not, or even what they might have been.

I find amusing the idea of an &#8220;objectionable&#8221; political affiliation. Objectionable to whom? Are you proposing that everyone think alike? A single party perhaps? (I guess one hundred thousand lemmings cannot possibly be wrong.)

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

I cede you the point, but only because I am afraid of your secret police.

[robert_henry]

Everyone,

Anyone who holds a job and provides for his/her family can hold their head high.

Why is it necessary to equate stupidity with having a  menial job?

Janice,
You state that all men are created equal.  I agree.  However, all men do not live and die equally.  Some people end up greater than others because of the choices they made along the way.  Greatness has little to do with wealth or class, but how one lives his/her life, and how they touched those around them or contributed to the betterment of the human race or to noble human pursuits (medicine, science, education, arts, etc.).  You are flirting with an indefensible position that all humans are of equal worth.  Do you really want to defend the notion that a murderer or rapist is just as valuable as a dentist, or a pastor, or a mother of three?

I'm especially interested in hearing how America is "devaluing human life".  Because we're at war?  Explain.  For instance, do you wish to compare an American soldier who put underwear on a prisoner's head with a Muslim extremist beheading an innocent civilian?  Are you making the case that the unfortunate human collateral in the Iraq war indicates that America is meanspirited or aiming for those people?  And which politicians or countries do you look to promote the anti-war movement, because they all agreed that WMD's existed, and only now oppose the USA/GWBush because of their transparent political motives.  (I hesitate to even bring up the war because the last time I attempted to hold a discussion with someone about it, in the thread 'George W. Bush', I soon realized that I was dealing with a complete partisan who was incapable of answering a question, hence I stopped posting there, so I wonder if this will be a waste as well.)  People's intellectual dishonesty and their willingness to be manipulated into believing in their own half-formed opinions just pisses me off.  Most people get their news from comedians like Jay Leno or from the Moore's of the world...sigh.

On the contrary, I think more and more societies around the world are celebrating the homeless, the uneducated, the unmotivated, the ignorant because we all want to feel 'compassionate'.  I strive for excellence in what I do, and I expect it from others., but unfortunately people are now feeling entitled to other people's earnings, so they vote politicians into power who will take from person A and give it to person B.   Ultimately, people end up where they do because of the choices they make throughout life.

Robert Henry

[janice]

(sigh )  what IF we were all on a desert island?  xvimbi would be on my ass, coming up with one ellaborate euphemism after another to defend people who are suckered into buying sh1tty keyboards,  Bernhard and Janice would have little arguments about nazis, and willcowskitz is beating the crap out of Spatula for making two posts at once...
whoa...and "Rocky" music playing in the background...

Gee, I thought that maybe I would be appointed to make chili for everyone!  At least Shagdac wants some and hopes that it turns out good!!

[janice]

What disturbed me was the "...Then these members are not productive members of society, and that they serve no purpose, so why do they exist?" part.

If something's nazi, that conclusion is.

Congratulations, Willcowskitz!  You have been the one who has come the CLOSEST to understanding what I have been trying to say (I finally gave up on trying to explain myself, that's why I haven't posted.)  Yes, my quote sounded Nazi-like because I was trying to explain how Bernhard's post sounded to me.  That's why I apologized umpteen times for maybe having had misunderstood it. I thought that some of Bernhard's statements were very disturbing (to ME).  That's why I called it a Nazi-like mentality.  The Holocoust was horrifying, and it is a very disturbingly swift downward spiral from point A (which states that certain people should be given dumb jobs so that they "will not be in the way of productive people"--quote from Bernhard) to point B (which begins with labelling these people, setting them apart from the rest of society, and eventually states "why do these people exist? they are not productive? wouldn't we be better off without them?"

And THAT is why I was disturbed.  I was being sarcastic, Willkowskitz.  However, you came the closest to understanding it.  Congratulations!

'nuff said.

[willcowskitz]

Janice:

I believe the discussions got off-the-rails quick and people were saying things that would try to explain matters that necessarily didn't have much to do with what other people got offended for from them later. This thread is a mess.



Robert_Henry:

Everyone,

Anyone who holds a job and provides for his/her family can hold their head high.

Yes.

Why is it necessary to equate stupidity with having a  menial job?

Because the modern society or the future of it is/will be much based on effectiveness, and a global spirit of competitiveness(...?)  is required to charge the human batteries to their fullest. I agree it is twisted, but it is how "nature" manages to arrange things.

I'm especially interested in hearing how America is "devaluing human life".  Because we're at war?  Explain.  For instance, do you wish to compare an American soldier who put underwear on a prisoner's head with a Muslim extremist beheading an innocent civilian?  Are you making the case that the unfortunate human collateral in the Iraq war indicates that America is meanspirited or aiming for those people?  And which politicians or countries do you look to promote the anti-war movement, because they all agreed that WMD's existed, and only now oppose the USA/GWBush because of their transparent political motives.

According to my understanding (correct me if needed), UN wanted proof of the existence of those weapons, and USA was unable to provide this proof hence why UN opposed the war, USA then going to it without UN's admission.

I don't believe any specific nation is "evil", while some are more or less free from individual's point of view. Be it Iraq where Saddam could torture anyone he wished, or USA where a man wearing a "Give peace a chance" t-shirt was put in jail as a warning example of effects of the patriot act. In Iraq, the terror was direct. In USA, the terror is painted with chrome and works via the controversial police forces which at the same time are supposed to protect the citizen, but also imprison him. I find it hilarious how Bush ALWAYS punctionates the word "freedom" in his speeches, cause the more they try to track down terrorist, the less freedom they can afford to grant their citizens. Benjamin Franklin expressed this contradiction: "The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either."  In order to track down terrorists, the surveillance over regular citizens must increase. The war is no longer fought in the battlefields but rather among all of us, its in the streets and its in all of us. Normal citizens are the targets, victims, soldiers and aggressors, and this is an excellent reason to gain more control over them. They can't oppose either since this is for their own good. The anti-terrorist campaigns and other fear-based propagandha ensure that people will have no choice but to trust the government and grant them more power over them in order to stop the killing. Who is on whose side?

Terrorists vs. Governments and the People, or
Governments and Terrorists vs. the People ?

Human mind is so immature, it can't handle such great power. Money shows this: If you're living in the forest, outside or before existence of societies and civilization, you only harvest what you consume. There is a direct connection between the nature and the man, you can only possess as much power as you can literally handle, this power is concrete and tied to your limits. Then comes in the squirrel skins, clam shells, and finally money. Money has abstract value to it, children haven't yet learnt this value so they don't know the meaning of money. Money is like a contract, a rule, something that the parts of society are made dependant on to keep the masses of people tighter close to each other. This abstract value knows no physical boundaries, the direct connection between the man and nature that it consumes, becomes broken and is replaced by twisted proportions in power granted to individuals. It creates imbalance in the world. Though it can be argued that imbalance is necessary for the development of mankind, I only brought in money as an example of how the immature mind of one man is incapable of handling such power beyond the "flow of nature" that the direct physical connection to nature limited it to. Another example of this is a dictator that goes on to endlessly satisfy his own personal life to megalomaniac extents in expense of his people, which shows how easy it is to shape the world when you only have the power for it. Power is madness for the feeble human mind and it alters your thoughts; moving masses of people in certain directions, creating havoc, revolutions, anything that seems big from the street perspective is nothing but a game of chess from a view from the throne. Do "our leaders" really care for the people, or do they have other goals behind their actions? Bush is an idiot, this can't even be argued, its been too evidently proven from time to time, in numerous occasions. Bush could be a doll to either the big machine (or life form) striving to feed itself that we call the society, or just a couple other minds that want to orchestrate the world into a certain state that would somehow give them what they want. Either way Bush is just a doll that possesses power beyond his comprehension. He only sees the game of chess (though I doubt he knows the rules).  Maybe, just maybe, the whole war on terrorism is nothing but a Project Totalitarism.

(I hesitate to even bring up the war because the last time I attempted to hold a discussion with someone about it, in the thread 'George W. Bush', I soon realized that I was dealing with a complete partisan who was incapable of answering a question, hence I stopped posting there, so I wonder if this will be a waste as well.)

I'll try to answer a question and argue these things if anyone has interest, because I don't know the truth, and I doubt anyone else does know the truth either, so I will be willing to form as complete picture of arguments as possible to derive the most probable conclusion.

People's intellectual dishonesty and their willingness to be manipulated into believing in their own half-formed opinions just pisses me off.  Most people get their news from comedians like Jay Leno or from the Moore's of the world...sigh.

What's wrong with Moore? His book "Stupid white people" (or something) is kind of clumsy and agitative, but isn't he only a messenger that tries to, by real situations, show us what is behind the curtain of happy and friendly images of corporate America.

On the contrary, I think more and more societies around the world are celebrating the homeless, the uneducated, the unmotivated, the ignorant because we all want to feel 'compassionate'.  I strive for excellence in what I do, and I expect it from others., but unfortunately people are now feeling entitled to other people's earnings, so they vote politicians into power who will take from person A and give it to person B.

By the way, average IQ of republican presidents has been remarkably lower than that of the democrats.

[Saturn]

What's wrong with Moore?

You mean aside from the deceptive editing jobs in his films?

Aside from the fact that he calls a "documentary" which should be labeled "propaganda"?

Aside from the fact that he gets people to believe they are seeing an "unbiased", solely educational view of things (yes, people really do believe this) and yet plays up their emotions more effectively than a Spielberg tearjerker?

Aside from the fact that on Letterman, he admitted that when he originally claimed the Bush administration went to war with Iraq under false pretenses (when he was accepting the Academy Award for "Bowling for Columbine"), he didn't actually know if it was true?

What's wrong with Moore?  Well, where shall we start?

- Saturn

[Spatula]

haha!! I am reminded of that part in Amadeus, when mozart was asking why all music needs to revolve around God.  He said the gods are treated as if they "sh1t marble"
hahaha!
donjuan

Sounds like lightning and thunder to me....BAMM BOOM
The actor, Tom Hulce, who portrayed Mozart at that time was (1984-1953) about 31 years old, so it was a decent "age" wise cast pick.  That guy acts like he's 12 with puberty problems, and annoying laughs, hence Mozart...  

Jeffery Jones, playing the emperor, and more famously, Ferris Bullier's principle, is like chunkly chubby now, thanks to a weight gain plan.  

[bernhard]

Sounds like lightning and thunder to me....BAMM BOOM
The actor, Tom Hulce, who portrayed Mozart at that time was (1984-1953) about 31 years old, so it was a decent "age" wise cast pick.  That guy acts like he's 12 with puberty problems, and annoying laughs, hence Mozart...  

Jeffery Jones, playing the emperor, and more famously, Ferris Bullier's principle, is like chunkly chubby now, thanks to a weight gain plan.  

And Emperor Joseph was first seen as one of the nutters in “One flew over the cuckoo’s nest”

Tom Hulce sprung to fame playing the lead in “Animal’s House” one of the funniest movies ever. After Amadeus he pretty much disappeared from the screens.

[willcowskitz]

You mean aside from the deceptive editing jobs in his films?

He edits them to suit his purpose? Ok. I wasn't aware, so no, not "aside from the fact", but add this to "What's wrong".

He calls a "documentary" which should be labeled "propaganda"?

How do you know what's propagandha? Moore's films or the material that labels Moore's films as such, or the material that claims the material that labels Moore's films as such, as such? How do you distinguish when everyone will be obviously telling what is best for them and their goals. I thought Moore only added view to the general brainwashed mentality of USA.

He gets people to believe they are seeing an "unbiased", solely educational view of things (yes, people really do believe this) and yet plays up their emotions more effectively than a Spielberg tearjerker?

Plays up their emotions, yes, maybe. "Unbiased"? Again, where is your source of knowledge, and why is it any more trustworthy than that of Moore's. I admit there's a propagandhist touch to how he represents things, but as always stimulus creates response and force creates opposing force.

He admitted that when he originally claimed the Bush administration went to war with Iraq under false pretenses (when he was accepting the Academy Award for "Bowling for Columbine"), he didn't actually know if it was true?

Well who would had known? Of course anyone who says there weren't real weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, are basing it on assumptions that there were other causes and motives for the war and the weapons were used as an excuse. Again, how could they know for sure? It was a possibility, and a probable one.

What's wrong with Moore?  Well, where shall we start?

Good start. No need for sarcasm, I am not at all familiar with Moore and as I try to remain objective about things to gain as much actual view and *knowledge* of them before making conclusions, I am open to all views and ideas that anyone has on the subject of Michael Moore. What still disturbs me is that in the same way as people blindly believe everything that Moore represents them (unless it offends them somehow), people have and will believe their authorities and just any manipulators that have motives to brainwash masses' minds. How do you know that you haven't been brainwashed? Solid view seems to often be a sign of a manipulated mind, since solid and in an aggressive sense strong opinions are so tied to emotional side of people such as their identities, or the identity of their nationality.

[robert_henry]

I haven't posted because I've been in Nashville for a few days.  I was at the annual Chet Atkins Convention (country and jazz guitarist).  

Disclaimer:  If I had more time, I would revise this post a bit to take the edge off.  It probably isn’t necessary though, because I’ve been here a long time and everyone knows I’m not a d**khead.  However, I don't apologize for opinions.  

Any thread which deals with the relative comparison of people is going to have political implications as well; why is this so surprising to some?  It begins with the nostalgic, poke in the ribs of some 'dumb people moments' we have witnessed.  Then it moves to what jobs or responsibilities these people are suited for, then eventually to why these jobs exist and why must the dumb people fill them, then to whose fault it is that they are dumb.  Then, we end up blaming someone else for the financial state these people find themselves in, which of course is always someone else's fault.  Then we move to what has to be done about it, and the answer always winds up being 'let's take from the productive members of society and give it to the unproductive.'  It is an attempt to create a classless society.  This is communism/socialism/fascism, depending of course on the setup and involvement of the government.  

And at this point in history, people in general are too stupid to live in a free society, one in which they and they alone are responsible for feeding, clothing, and housing themselves.

One might even say the injudicious use of the word 'Nazi', particularly when one doesn't know the definition, is dumb.  I think the IQ of a person is directly proportional to how long it takes that person to use either of the following words in describing another person or thought: 'Nazi' or 'Hitler'.  Then, these people form opinions about matters of the greatest international importance by either reducing their points down to a bumper-sticker sized slogan that sounds catchy and is easily digestible for the masses ("war for oil", or your tired "Bush is an idiot" line), or by just excusing themselves from the discussion when their opinions are challenged in the least.  At least you aren’t running away.

You said:  “By the way, average IQ of republican presidents has been remarkably lower than that of the democrats.”

The validity and veracity of this statement aside, since when are we discussing republicans and democrats?  I am neither.  


I appreciate the way you so floridly stated that obvious "money equals power" idea.  Is this news?  Willcowskitz, your opinions are written more in philosophical terms, and I do appreciate that on one level, but where is your application?  Unfortunately, when you do come down from the clouds, we get the feeble-minded “Bush is an idiot” routine.  You remind me of lessons with Andre Watts…”well, it could be this and it could be that, I don’t want to say one way or the other.”  Translation: I have no strong applications or convictions, ultimately only insubstantial philosophy.    You say you try to maintain an open mind and that you "try to remain objective about things to gain as much actual view and *knowledge* of them before making conclusions", which is good, but are you ever going to form an opinion?  

And then you give us a good dose of your brand of moral relativism.  A single man arrested for a t-shirt in the US (who was almost immediately released because of justified national outcry) is compared in the same sentence to state-sanctioned torture, the mass murder of hundreds of thousands, the use of chemical weapons, and all of this at the whim of a dictator.  Then you follow with another Iraq/US comparison as if the injustices are equal.  This is similar to the world's outrage at the recent US/Iraqi Prison scandal when they have for decades ignored Iraqis being put into shredders by Saddam's own soldiers.  Hypocrisy and political expediency.  

As for Moore, there are so many articles written about the inaccuracies that I'm not going to waste time rewriting them.  An example of this Moore’s BS is his assertion that 43% of Bush's presidency has been spent on vacation.  Yeah, if you include weekends!  In reality, it is something like 13%.  Little things like this.  For instance, the claim that a company that Bush Sr. worked for 1.4 billion in Saudi money...he didn't even work for the company at the time.  In fact, that company was sold to another, and only five months later did Bush Sr. join that parent company.  This movie is beyond propaganda, which by definition is not necessarily underhanded.  Giving one's opinion (as we all are doing here) is propaganda in a sense in that we attempting to persuade and convince others.  Opinions are only worth the facts they are based on.  Showing Bush on a golf course saying something, then cutting the actual footage to five minutes later but editing it and joining the comments to give the impression that it was a continuing train of thought is beyond propaganda.  Moore wants to focus more (pardon the pun) on the seven minutes in which Bush remained calm after the first plane hit rather than the hundreds of people who had just instantly died or more appropriately on those who actually murdered them.  That is the best he comes up with?  What a reach for some way to blame Bush rather than the Islamic terrorists!  No.  Rather, Moore through this film *knowingly* distorts facts to serve an end.  That is beyond propaganda.  It is interesting that the terror group Hezbollah wants to finance that film to be shown in Muslim countries.

A great article (written by an admitted albeit recovering 20-year socialist, who incidentally has written equally scathing articles about Ronald Reagan) can be found here:
https://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/)



I asked: “Why is it necessary to equate stupidity with having a  menial job?”

You said:  “Because the modern society or the future of it is/will be much based on effectiveness, and a global spirit of competitiveness(...?)  is required to charge the human batteries to their fullest. I agree it is twisted, but it is how "nature" manages to arrange things.”

I say:  Besides my question being obviously rhetorical, equating stupidity with menial jobs is a choice; no one is forced to think or feel a certain way about someone else - they choose to.  Explaining this choice away as "natural" is akin to explaining racial, sexual, or religious bigotry as something that is also natural, so the appropriate response must be a simple shrug of the shoulders.  Where does this justification stop?  You might believe this choice is twisted, and I'm not accusing you of thinking that of the 'dumb', but you are taking a sort of 'oh well' attitude about it.



You said:  “According to my understanding (correct me if needed), UN wanted proof of the existence of those weapons, and USA was unable to provide this proof hence why UN opposed the war, USA then going to it without UN's admission.”

You do need correction, and that is the problem with most arguments against the war.  Have you read any of the 17 UN resolutions prior to the war?  No?  Educate yourself, and read from ALL sources.  As if the UN has credibility in the first place...  What happened to trying to learn before forming an opinion?

May I infer from your comment that the UN only approves wars that are founded, and that any war without the approval of the UN is wrong?  Did Clinton go into Serbia and Bosnia with or without UN approval?  Do you even know?  The answer is 'without.'  And according to my recollection, he didn't even ask.  Where were the war protests?  Where were the peace rallies?  Was this not also preemption?  Was the US being threatened?  It all sounds like selective outrage to me, and is by definition intellectual dishonesty.

Here is a thought - did the UN approve a no-fly zone in Iraq a decade ago?  Yes.  Did Saddam fire on coalition aircraft patrolling that no fly zone?  Yes, and these attacks are considered acts of war, which could have legally justified an invasion years ago.  Of course, we can agree that pre-war intelligence was obviously flawed, but this was not just US intelligence - we are talking about every intelligence agency in the world.  Apparently even Saddam's own scientists were stretching the truth to him out of fear.  

I'm not going to repeat every point I made in the Bush post nor make new ones...no time and ultimately it is pointless because of partisanship.

The world still hasn't awakened to the fact unless you believe as they do, there are Muslims in the world who want to kill you.  As of this writing there are 122 wars in the world today, and Muslims (members of the religion of peace) are involved in 117 of them.  We in the rest of the world foolishly want to apply our standards of negotiation and reason, and engage them in a “dialogue”, because perhaps they are just misunderstood...   I want peace just as much as France does, but these fanatics cannot be dealt with.  How do you deal with someone who says that his/her god has commanded them to kill you?  How many beheadings/suicide bombings/tortures/hijackings/kidnappings/assassination attempts/theaters being held hostage/attempts to obtain weapons does it take for us to understand their intent?  (These are rhetorical questions, folks).  (Speaking of dumb people…Jeez).  Unfortunately, it will take at least one more major act of Islamic terror to educate the world to their goals of world domination.  Although, even with this occurs, it will somehow be the fault of someone else, namely the countries who are trying to stop the terror in the first place.  Case in point, there is rap song that just come out that says, “Why did Bush knock down the Towers?”
 
Have any of you seen the videos of Saddam's torture chambers, where they cut off heads, tongues, and hands?   Of course not.  These only strengthen the case for war, therefore the media doesn’t show them.

Here are some links to consider:
https://www.ogrish.com/index2.htm

There are many more videos like these out there, but let’s only show the mean Americans making a naked man stand on a cardboard box...  (I don’t condone what they did, btw).

This was a rant.  ‘Dumb people’ working to have a better life is one thing.  I respect and support that.  I don’t support people who make excuses for them, those who want to redistribute goods/services/wealth to them from the other hard working among us, nor the fact that they are largely ignorant of world events and are either incapable or happily unwilling to place world events in historical context for comparisons and lessons learned.  They don’t read the paper, don't watch various news sources, nor can they debate an issue for more than ten seconds.  They have kids they can’t afford, then want everyone else to pay for them (their food, education, housing, medicine, etc.).  It is summed up in one word: RESPONSIBILTY (and by extension, misplaced blame.)  It pervades the legal system with people suing McD’s for being fat, the media with news broadcasts, editors, and films that blame the US and her allies more for terror than the actual terrorists, and our economy with the non-achievers blaming the achievers.  I realize in the world of the arts that my thoughts are largely blasphemous.  I don’t care.  Being politically correct is not in my resume.  

Now back to practicing.  I need to stay out of the Misc. Forums!  It takes too much time!  

Robert Henry

[janice]

You said:  “According to my understanding (correct me if needed), UN wanted proof of the existence of those weapons, and USA was unable to provide this proof hence why UN opposed the war, USA then going to it without UN's admission.”

You do need correction, and that is the problem with most arguments against the war.  Have you read any of the 17 UN resolutions prior to the war?  No?  Educate yourself, and read from ALL sources.  As if the UN has credibility in the first place...  What happened to trying to learn before forming an opinion?

May I infer from your comment that the UN only approves wars that are founded, and that any war without the approval of the UN is wrong?  Did Clinton go into Serbia and Bosnia with or without UN approval?  Do you even know?  The answer is 'without.'  And according to my recollection, he didn't even ask.  Where were the war protests?  Where were the peace rallies?  It all sounds like selective outrage to me, and is by definition intellectual dishonest.

Here is a thought - did the UN approve a no-fly zone in Iraq a decade ago?  Yes.  Did Saddam fire on coalition aircraft patrolling that no fly zone?  Yes, and these attacks are considered acts of war, which could have legally justified an invasion years ago.  Of course, we can agree that pre-war intelligence was obviously flawed, but this was not just US intelligence - we are talking about every intelligence agency in the world.  Apparently even Saddam's own scientists were stretching the truth to him out of fear.  

I'm not going to repeat every point I made in the Bush post nor make new ones...no time and ultimately it is pointless because of partisanship.

The world still haven’t awakened to the fact unless you believe as they do, there are Muslims in the world who want to kill you.  As of this writing there are 122 wars in the world today, and Muslims (members of the religion of peace) are involved in 117 of them.  We in the rest of the world foolishly want to apply our standards of negotiation and reason, and engage them in a “dialogue”, because perhaps they are just misunderstood...   I want peace just as much as France does, but these fanatics cannot be dealt with.  How do you deal with someone who says that his/her god has commanded them to kill you?  How many beheadings/suicide bombings/tortures/hijackings/kidnappings/assassination attempts/theaters being held hostage/attempts to obtain weapons does it take for us to understand their intent?  (These are rhetorical questions, folks).  (Speaking of dumb people…Jeez).  Unfortunately, it will take at least one more major act of Islamic terror to educate the world to their goals of world domination.  Although, even with this occurs, it will somehow be the fault of someone else, namely the countries who are trying to stop the terror in the first place.  Case in point, there is rap song that just come out that says, “Why did Bush knock down the Towers?”
 
Have any of you seen the videos of Saddam's torture chambers, where they cut off heads, tongues, and hands?   Of course not.  These only strengthen the case for war, therefore the media doesn’t show them.

I say "amen!!" to this part!  Robert, I was the one who used the term "Nazi-like", as I'm sure you are aware.  (btw--I do happen to have a high IQ ) 1) I put the term in quotes to denote that it was not to be taken  literally, but figuratively.  I wrote it while I was in a hurry, along with lack of sleep caused me to be unable to think of a better term or to explain myself.  And that's why I posted later in that thread, and apologized for my use of the term "Nazi-like", and I had also explained in my original post (I think.)

Apart from this, I agree with the rest of your post, and I said a big "amen!"

[willcowskitz]

And at this point in history, people in general are too stupid to live in a free society, one in which they and they alone are responsible for feeding, clothing, and housing themselves.

Helpless maybe, at first, but I doubt the 'too stupid' part, or we wouldn't even be here now. The current society on the other hand seems to mostly favour the engineer type of minds that can easily be set on a conveyor belt to and dropped into most optimal slot in the machinery.

Then, these people form opinions about matters of the greatest international importance by either reducing their points down to a bumper-sticker sized slogan that sounds catchy and is easily digestible for the masses ("war for oil", or your tired "Bush is an idiot" line), or by just excusing themselves from the discussion when their opinions are challenged in the least.  At least you aren’t running away.

I can hook you up with some video clips (on request) of how "conscious" or confident Bush acts when he is suddenly confronted with questions that he hasn't been taught to answer in linear manner that he somehow manages in press conferences. I want to ask you; what evidence have you ever noticed in Bush's behaviour or sayings that would imply him to think for himself?

The validity and veracity of this statement aside, since when are we discussing republicans and democrats?  I am neither.

If you are neither, does it mean that you're not into politics (though you obviously have involvement in thinking and probably debating it), or that you're not satisfied with the two-party system?

I appreciate the way you so floridly stated that obvious "money equals power" idea.  Is this news?  Willcowskitz, your opinions are written more in philosophical terms, and I do appreciate that on one level, but where is your application?

Philosophical beacuse it involves all and I'm not looking to separate different concepts from each other but rather try to understand the world as a singular complex system, which is why I see connections between the movement of masses of people and the movement of ants, they are both made of same material and they have something in common, whatever scale you choose to observe them from. The thing with me and politics is that I am conscious of my immaturity in that area, and I have yet to form something solid out of it. Due to different propaganda from different sources, here my communist friends and capitalist parents, only leave me confused of what is THE FACT on this and that, cause all I know is that somebody is obviously lying about something or leaving important stuff out on purpose to suit their own goals. "Oh well", its politics, I guess lying is apparently involved.

Unfortunately, when you do come down from the clouds, we get the feeble-minded “Bush is an idiot” routine.

My statement is based on what I have heard and seen, which includes Bush's clumsy verbal skills, his inability to provide straight answers off-guard, and the fact that he drove USA's economy way down from Clinton's era (I also heard he wasted money in alternate interests such as the mission to Mars). My source is the Internet (which is full of propaganda, but what media isn't?).

You remind me of lessons with Andre Watts…”well, it could be this and it could be that, I don’t want to say one way or the other.”  Translation: I have no strong applications or convictions, ultimately only insubstantial philosophy.    You say you try to maintain an open mind and that you "try to remain objective about things to gain as much actual view and *knowledge* of them before making conclusions", which is good, but are you ever going to form an opinion?

I'm still working on it.

And then you give us a good dose of your brand of moral relativism.  A single man arrested for a t-shirt in the US (who was almost immediately released because of justified national outcry) is compared in the same sentence to state-sanctioned torture, the mass murder of hundreds of thousands, the use of chemical weapons, and all of this at the whim of a dictator.

I knew somebody would get provoced, and that was obviously the intention. You had to have some motivation to reply to me, right? Anyway, I made this comparison because of how alerting the sneaking of patriot acts into legislation is:
https://www.aclu.org/NationalSecurity/NationalSecurity.cfm?ID=11437&c=111

Even if the citizens will care to rise and demonstrate against cases like the t-shirt one, it will only slow things down instead of stopping them. Are people in USA "educated" about terrorism other than the Bush campaign that abused the WTC strike to draw a connection from the destruction and recovering from it to Bush and his government? Isn't fear exactly what people like Ashcroft, who slip through patriot acts, could use as means to force the citizens to rely on authority of the government for protection? Local communities are broken, and as surveillance increases, there only exists one community - the society. If you want protection you better give out your freedom cause you're not going to get both. And once you have granted all the power to this authority because you at the time believed in it and that it had good intentions, how will you ever be able to protest against it afterwards? Absolute power corrupts absolutely, not that the ones ruling the world weren't corrupted already.

Then you follow with another Iraq/US comparison as if the injustices are equal.  This is similar to the world's outrage at the recent US/Iraqi Prison scandal when they have for decades ignored Iraqis being put into shredders by Saddam's own soldiers.  Hypocrisy and political expediency.

 

The outrage was probably boosted a bit by the fact that the people that went there to "liberate" those tortured Iraqis, turned out to act more like the torturers themselves when exposed to 'extreme conditions'. Media of course also played an important role in creating a scandal that would reach and get people involved and to despise the acts and insist on finding the responsible. Speaking of hipocrisy, what do *you* believe was the primary motive for war?

As for Moore, there are so many articles written about the inaccuracies that I'm not going to waste time rewriting them.  An example of this Moore’s BS is his assertion that 43% of Bush's presidency has been spent on vacation.  Yeah, if you include weekends!  In reality, it is something like 13%.  Little things like this.  For instance, the claim that a company that Bush Sr. worked for 1.4 billion in Saudi money...he didn't even work for the company at the time.  In fact, that company was sold to another, and only five months later did Bush Sr. join that parent company.  This movie is beyond propaganda, which by definition is not necessarily underhanded.  Giving one's opinion (as we all are doing here) is propaganda in a sense in that we attempting to persuade and convince others.  Opinions are only worth the facts they are based on.  Showing Bush on a golf course saying something, then cutting the actual footage to five minutes later but editing it and joining the comments to give the impression that it was a continuing train of thought is beyond propaganda.  Moore wants to focus more (pardon the pun) on the seven minutes in which Bush remained calm after the first plane hit rather than the hundreds of people who had just instantly died or more appropriately on those who actually murdered them.  That is the best he comes up with?  What a reach for some way to blame Bush rather than the Islamic terrorists!  No.  Rather, Moore through this film *knowingly* distorts facts to serve an end.  That is beyond propaganda.  It is interesting that the terror group Hezbollah wants to finance that film to be shown in Muslim countries.

Just what source of information IS totally objective? To me its been obvious since I saw Moore's documentary for the first time that he wants to turn people's opinions into certain directions. Do you watch TV much? Isn't it just overflowing with propaganda, at worst the hypnotic patriotism clips or the terror reminders that raise silent hysteria that drives people to support whatever acts the government wants to take in either clearing the world of evil dictators or of terrorists - wherever they are among us. I don't see Moore's propaganda to be any dirtier than that of political parties or Bush's anti-terrorism ads, just creating contrast to the general opinion and the careless American mentality (I know you can't blame one citizen for their level of wealthiness, after all they have been 'raised' to take it for granted and besides, you can't change the structure of something (the society) from the outside). I'm not saying Moore is being 100% truthful, but it seems he has a motive for what he does and this is not to disgrace America but to make people realize that the rest of the world increasingly dislikes them and that there are apparent reasons for it as there always is for everything, and that things could be different. As for the terrorist organization funding the publication of Moore's anti-American film in Muslim countries, wouldn't it be funny if they didn't? Just like they brainwash their people into irrationally hating people from distant lands that they have never seen, the hatred is being raised in the western world against Arabs. If you want to turn around masses' heads, you will have to be aggressive, intimidating and manipulative.

...

[willcowskitz]

...

A great article (written by an admitted albeit recovering 20-year socialist, who incidentally has written equally scathing articles about Ronald Reagan) can be found here:
https://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/)

Consistent, critical and one-sided. Doesn't the last paragraph, at least, fall into the category of propaganda as you described it - It only mentions what suits it's goal and tries to convince people by a rush of separate "facts" just like in Moore's representation.

I say:  Besides my question being obviously rhetorical, equating stupidity with menial jobs is a choice; no one is forced to think or feel a certain way about someone else - they choose to.

Just where does the real choice lie? People tied to any social circles are subject to passive manipulation as they adapt and together form a general consensus that in the end is not just the image of what people think, but also affects how people should think - Just like art, it reflects the cultural settings of the time but also shapes them. How many people really make daily choices based on what their rational side has to say about them, would they really go through the burden of thinking if there exists the fastfood option - readily formed opinions that have minimalistic basis on facts but huge support in form of pressure of the social ring.

 Explaining this choice away as "natural" is akin to explaining racial, sexual, or religious bigotry as something that is also natural, so the appropriate response must be a simple shrug of the shoulders.  Where does this justification stop?  You might believe this choice is twisted, and I'm not accusing you of thinking that of the 'dumb', but you are taking a sort of 'oh well' attitude about it.

The pressure and consensus I mentioned were only the reflection of the natural "movement of ants" as I hinted earlier - The responsibility gets lost in the uncertainty of individuals when they rely on larger forms of life (the social circles) to support them as the spine for all their beliefs and views. This irresponsibility of unwillingness to think is the reason why propaganda works. I think all evolution is natural, even evolution of thoughts or "memes" as in the culture genes, and real liberation of human mind awaits in some time in the future.

You do need correction, and that is the problem with most arguments against the war.  Have you read any of the 17 UN resolutions prior to the war?  No?  Educate yourself, and read from ALL sources.  As if the UN has credibility in the first place...  What happened to trying to learn before forming an opinion?

If I had formed an opinion, I would had bothered to present it. How do the resolutions relate to what I said about that  a) USA wanted a war,  b) UN wanted a reason.  "a" was evident, "b" didn't happen.  Anyway, if you do have the contradictions with my statements and the reality in mind and can represent them in a nutshell, I Am Open To New Information. I know, you're too busy to write here, but I'm also too busy to read through all the resolutions and try to spot the details that have got something to do with what my assumptions of the war and UN's and USA's relationship were.

May I infer from your comment that the UN only approves wars that are founded, and that any war without the approval of the UN is wrong?

The role of UN is to try maintain balance between powers of the world, to let every nation state their opinion and try negotiate through possible crisis so the that one nation's goals can't become a priority that surpasses others' and grants the power to anyone who possesses more physical force.

 Did Clinton go into Serbia and Bosnia with or without UN approval?  Do you even know?  The answer is 'without.'  And according to my recollection, he didn't even ask.  Where were the war protests?  Where were the peace rallies?  Was this not also preemption?  Was the US being threatened?  It all sounds like selective outrage to me, and is by definition intellectual dishonesty.

It could be just awakening outrage. Hasn't US always been warring all over the world, though only wars that can now be looked at as 'justified' will be mentioned. I also accidentally found another interesting article from Christophen Hitchens:
https://www.motherjones.com/commentary/power_plays/2001/05/roguenation.html

The world still hasn't awakened to the fact unless you believe as they do, there are Muslims in the world who want to kill you.  As of this writing there are 122 wars in the world today, and Muslims (members of the religion of peace) are involved in 117 of them.  We in the rest of the world foolishly want to apply our standards of negotiation and reason, and engage them in a “dialogue”, because perhaps they are just misunderstood...   I want peace just as much as France does, but these fanatics cannot be dealt with.  How do you deal with someone who says that his/her god has commanded them to kill you?  How many beheadings/suicide bombings/tortures/hijackings/kidnappings/assassination attempts/theaters being held hostage/attempts to obtain weapons does it take for us to understand their intent?

I still believe in educating people, but of course it is more difficult to apply on those who have for longer been living inside these brainwashed societies, hence why we'd have to concentrate on children and the only authority besides the parents would obviously be the government or education system (if they have any). Anyways, I also promote the message of quote from Baltasar Gracian: "Wise man learns more from his enemies than a fool from his friends." - We can't just stamp them as "insane" and bomb the sh*t out of them justified by that they're impossible to adapt to "civilized" world, we have to see the cause of their hatred and cure it. To me it seems they're only living through hard times and confusion and can only turn to God, similar to Americans who are by fear driven to turn to their government for protection from terrorism, but, after all, isn't America the promised land. "In God we trust" - hasn't Bush hinted that he receives commands from a "higher quarter"? Intentious rhetorics maybe, but still, the connection to Orwell's 1984 (as the bashed Moore also brought in) comes from the both sides having an unreachable enemy beyond the seas and how they're motivated to invest their lives in fighting against this invisible enemy.

It pervades the legal system with people suing McD’s for being fat, the media with news broadcasts, editors, and films that blame the US and her allies more for terror than the actual terrorists, and our economy with the non-achievers blaming the achievers.  I realize in the world of the arts that my thoughts are largely blasphemous.  I don’t care.  Being politically correct is not in my resume.

"Blame US and it's allies more for terror than the actual terrorists" is probably because this world is closer to us and we're more familiar with it which more easily frightens us than 'something distant' happening in 'some distant place', like nobody gave a rat's ass about Muslim suicidebombers until we got some on our backyards.

Now back to practicing.  I need to stay out of the Misc. Forums!  It takes too much time!

You took some of my time too, thanks for the profound reply. And I'm still open to views and trying to remain objective.  

[Saturn]

Just what source of information IS totally objective? To me its been obvious since I saw Moore's documentary for the first time that he wants to turn people's opinions into certain directions. Do you watch TV much? Isn't it just overflowing with propaganda, at worst the hypnotic patriotism clips or the terror reminders that raise silent hysteria that drives people to support whatever acts the government wants to take in either clearing the world of evil dictators or of terrorists - wherever they are among us. I don't see Moore's propaganda to be any dirtier than that of political parties or Bush's anti-terrorism ads, just creating contrast to the general opinion and the careless American mentality (I know you can't blame one citizen for their level of wealthiness, after all they have been 'raised' to take it for granted and besides, you can't change the structure of something (the society) from the outside).

Whether Moore's propaganda is any dirtier than other propaganda is really just a matter of partisanship and bias.  If you agree with Moore, his propaganda serves the good and worthy cause of helping to "educate" the public.  If you disagree with Moore, his propaganda is full of lies and anti-patriotism.

Propaganda is propaganda.  No one is better than another; each serves its own agenda.

If you want to turn around masses' heads, you will have to be aggressive, intimidating and manipulative.

This is exactly the stance Moore takes with his films.  The masses are mindless sheep, they merely do and think whatever their president tells them to.  In order for there to be change, we must show them something radically different!  We must show them what lies their government has been telling them!!

And so, Moore shows the masses the truth.  Or rather, the truth according to Moore.  With a few "creatively edited" video clips, and a few distorted facts here and there, he manages to explain his ideas in a very pursuasive manner.  And by the end of the film, the viewers leave the theater with a whole new set of ideas.

Yet, to what avail?  Rather than show viewers how to think about the problem, he shows them WHAT to think.  He hammers his ideas into their heads.  And do our uneducated masses leave the theater any more educated than before?  Any more informed?  Any more enlightened?  Any more truly concerned about the problems with America and possible solutions?

Nope.

- Saturn

[willcowskitz]

Yet, to what avail?  Rather than show viewers how to think about the problem, he shows them WHAT to think.  He hammers his ideas into their heads.  And do our uneducated masses leave the theater any more educated than before?  Any more informed?  Any more enlightened?  Any more truly concerned about the problems with America and possible solutions?

Nope.

You're absolutely right, but how can you make the masses think? Anyone who comes up with a solution will revolutionize the world. For me (I might be cynical, but it is only result from observation of people) it seems that through all eras, the only way to make people move is through making them angry by showing them they've been violated, or have them believe in something that could punish them for their "sins" (same kind of motivation (but reversively applied) as what Palestinean suicide bombers are driven with, thinking they'll get into paradise for doing "good" deeds). Fear, anger and frustration. And, of course, religions and the madness they tend to bring as a side effect.

[Peachy_Keen]

I'd like to ask a question: Throughout this debate, has anyone involved reached a conclusion that wasn't predetermined?

For all the debating over Michael Moore, very little information has actually been brought up. There was an interesting example about the movement of ants and a decentralization of responsibility, which had no historical or social support other than the observations of one person. Most of the comparisons involving the Iraqi prisoner abuse had no support and relied on vague  generalisations to get the point across.

Other than what's in your heads, I can't find virtually any outside information in this thread. Maybe you can cite information to back up all of your arguments with no problem, but condemning the human race is pretty heady stuff. I'd expect anyone who refers to the "mindless masses" on a regular basis should have his/her bibliography on hand.

I don't really expect you to listen to this advice, but if I planned on getting into any more internet debates i'd start carefully documenting where I get my information from. The conclusion you arrive at is useless (for the purposes of the "mindless masses") unless you can demonstrate, using the information you have, how you got there.

[willcowskitz]

I don't even take this as a debate, because as I admitted I have yet to form solid opinions on such big matters. I am not attempting to turn anyone around to support certain view, but merely presenting my own and learning from others'. Of course "slight" (hahah) contradictions are unavoidable, which is why I (and everyone) still obviously have something to learn if we want to get closer to the truth. In a nutshell, this "debate" over terrorism and totalitarianism isn't about what I think or he thinks, but rather what can we KNOW and what should be concluded from that. One thing is for sure; as long as one picks a side and sets himself against someone else, there exists wars. People are forced to pick sides based on "we're right they're wrong", but again no one man alone will start a war, nor will he be able to create a reason for one. As R. Henry mentioned, I'm more of a philosopher than a politician, and I'm trying to "know my role" meanwhile I gain more perspective (which always seems to favour certain side, making my process of gathering this information more painful).


Added:  Which conclusion do you mean exactly? You even got stuck in the ant-society analogy though I was only using it to describe my way of primarily trying to see the whole only as something that the details such as movements of mankind that can be explained by going more into detail, and so on. This I had presented as response to Robert's implication of my political neutrality that he probably was frustrated with since I had voiced views on politics. If you didn't go through my posts with the "He's only babbling to make up for the empty space in his head" attitude, you'd more easily see what I am after. I'm not here to prove anything, but grow, and as it goes in for example (again) art, there must exist communication to both directions for it to take full effect. What is a painting without a setting of environment of the artist, the numerous influential factors that were there to give their share into creation of that painting - and what is the painting without someone who views or interprets it in such manners that it comes alive? The previous is just another example of how easily I get carried away when trying to explain myself or my motives and how it only creates more confusion on the actual subject. So please just shrug at my ant analogies and such, if you don't see a valid justification for their presence.

[Peachy_Keen]

I picked out your ant analogy as the most obvious example of a sweeping yet unsupported statement. Generalisations aren't accurate reflections of the things they compare, and in no case do they give you an accurate working knowledge of they supposedly represent.

Bouncing your opinions off other people is very nice, but with no operating knowledge it's impossible to engage in constructive deliberation.

Regarding your last post, I don't understand what you mean by two sides being a war. Obviously by war you don't mean armed conflict, but to name a few: what about deliberation, compromise, and debate?

As far as having no opinions, I picked a quote randomly from one of your posts. I'm assuming you're taking the role of devil's advocate here, but that doesn't neccesitate an unjustified assault upon someone else's character.

I can hook you up with some video clips (on request) of how "conscious" or confident Bush acts when he is suddenly confronted with questions that he hasn't been taught to answer in linear manner that he somehow manages in press conferences.

There are several serious implications there about his intelligence that I should not have to point out specifically. Maybe you're one of the gifted few, but I for one know how hard public speaking can be, and it doesn't get any easier if you're one of the most powerful people in the world and you're talking about something that noone agrees on.

It's possible that I should go find a dictionary and look up the definition of opinion, but i'm having a hard time finding anything in this thread that isn't an opinion. Whenever you make an analogy, refer to a term that describes a group of people, or draw a conclusion without explicitly stating the facts that justify it, you're making an opinion. If it's not so clear to you I can pick out a few dozen quotes that represent opinionated material.

Not having party affiliations and avoiding direct definitive statements is a good start, but it seems like you're a long way away from having no opinions.

Sorry if my post is hard to understand, i'm a bit short on time and won't have a chance to look at it again until later.

[willcowskitz]

I picked out your ant analogy as the most obvious example of a sweeping yet unsupported statement. Generalisations aren't accurate reflections of the things they compare, and in no case do they give you an accurate working knowledge of they supposedly represent.

What exactly was I trying to sweep? The ants were used as an adapter between large scale human life and small scale ant life, to compare their structure. Ant "societies" can be seemingly very complex from the outside, yet they play by simple rules and hierarchy where the queen is on the top and workers/warriors in the bottom. This is what I had to say about humanity; No matter how complex the individual arguments or disagreements and their historical background and personal details involved is to the outside and when viewed through politics, when you take a nation as a unit that has "organ(ization)s" and individuals or their economy's current state as the quality of their blood running in their veins, you see it has it's own individual goals. In the middle age the church was the centre of education and it wouldn't share it's knowledge to just anyone but remained in it's privileged position as the ultimate authority besides royal families. The obvious differences between classes and their chances to alter anything in the society piled the power to the church and royal elite which is by far smaller quarter at carrying out decisions than the democratic society of today because today the opinion is reflection of the majority of people which drives us to the direction defined by the average. If visionaries such as George Orwell could predict the direction of mankind in his texts it is either because he was aware of the fraud called democracy (to give the individual an illusion of freedom to keep him in line while true political elite regulates everything) or because the average is like an ant society; it looks complex on the outside and every ant seems to act consciously, but in the core it is based on simple stimulus and response - so he looked at the stimuluses and wrote out the resulting responses.  Oh and P.S.  I was not trying to prove anything with my ant analogy, just explain how the world looks different from different scales.

Bouncing your opinions off other people is very nice, but with no operating knowledge it's impossible to engage in constructive deliberation.

The "knowledge" (more or less) I have gathered on the subject is either from media (papers, Internet, TV) or my friends or other acquaintances. I don't understand why a presenter of thoughts would have to carry a label on him, such as a name or face, because regardless of the credibility (or lack of it (which is often sadly based on how he could be categorised by looking at the surface)) of a person, if he has something to say it should be taken into consideration and be reality/truth distinguished from imagination/lies by logical thinking process rather than labelling a person and prison opposite opinions outside credible society. So here, I represent certain thoughts and views which I think should be taken into consideration when forming the final, complete picture. Censorship and unanonymousity are speed bumps for the real development.

Regarding your last post, I don't understand what you mean by two sides being a war. Obviously by war you don't mean armed conflict, but to name a few: what about deliberation, compromise, and debate?

At least two sides. By war I mean something that most probably results in armed conflict. Deliberation, compromise and debate become less and less effective means of avoiding the final conflict the more mindless people one side of the war recruits - then it is the raw physical force that decides what is right and what is wrong (and of course the man always wants everything for himself instead of sharing it if possible).

As far as having no opinions, I picked a quote randomly from one of your posts. I'm assuming you're taking the role of devil's advocate here, but that doesn't neccesitate an unjustified assault upon someone else's character.
There are several serious implications there about his intelligence that I should not have to point out specifically. Maybe you're one of the gifted few, but I for one know how hard public speaking can be, and it doesn't get any easier if you're one of the most powerful people in the world and you're talking about something that noone agrees on.

I know that too, but taking into consideration the responsibility that the most powerful man in the world has to succesfully carry and act out, the quality of his public performance is important. As in contrary: Have you ever seen him perform to his advantage? If you have, I'm more than glad to gain view into that because I have yet to see it for myself.

It's possible that I should go find a dictionary and look up the definition of opinion, but i'm having a hard time finding anything in this thread that isn't an opinion. Whenever you make an analogy, refer to a term that describes a group of people, or draw a conclusion without explicitly stating the facts that justify it, you're making an opinion. If it's not so clear to you I can pick out a few dozen quotes that represent opinionated material.

Not having party affiliations and avoiding direct definitive statements is a good start, but it seems like you're a long way away from having no opinions.

In certain sense that is true, so in that case I will clarify: My opinions are not static, they are subject to being updated and, due to that, changed.

Sorry if my post is hard to understand, i'm a bit short on time and won't have a chance to look at it again until later.

Just tell me if I misunderstood something.

[Peachy_Keen]

I'll try a different angle...

Bush is an idiot, this can't even be argued, its been too evidently proven from time to time, in numerous occasions. Bush could be a doll to either the big machine (or life form) striving to feed itself that we call the society, or just a couple other minds that want to orchestrate the world into a certain state that would somehow give them what they want. Either way Bush is just a doll that possesses power beyond his comprehension. He only sees the game of chess (though I doubt he knows the rules).

Here, you state that "Bush is an idiot" say that it's a fact, and then go off on three seperate analogies instead of supporting your thesis.

I can hook you up with some video clips (on request) of how "conscious" or confident Bush acts when he is suddenly confronted with questions that he hasn't been taught to answer in linear manner that he somehow manages in press conferences.

Here, you make more allusions to Bush's lack of intelligence, based on his public speaking ability.

My statement is based on what I have heard and seen, which includes Bush's clumsy verbal skills, his inability to provide straight answers off-guard, and the fact that he drove USA's economy way down from Clinton's era

Back that statement about the economy up. Before you do, i'm just going to toss out a wild guess and say you're not qualified to make that statement. On the off chance you are qualified to make that statement, I expect a bibliography.

I know that too, but taking into consideration the responsibility that the most powerful man in the world has to succesfully carry and act out, the quality of his public performance is important.

After I comment on public speaking, you withdraw from the previous point about intelligence and refer to public performances as "important", without explaining how.

Here's another example...

One thing is for sure; as long as one picks a side and sets himself against someone else, there exists wars.

By war I mean something that most probably results in armed conflict. Deliberation, compromise and debate become less and less effective means of avoiding the final conflict the more mindless people one side of the war recruits.

Even though one is a clarification of the other, the two statements are totally different! The first is an analogy that deals with individuals, and the second draws a relationship between the # of "mindless people" and "likelihood of war".

Don't bother elaborating any more... I just wanted to demonstrate how confusing/contradictory a lot of the things you are saying appear to others.

I don't understand why a presenter of thoughts would have to carry a label on him, such as a name or face, because regardless of the credibility of a person, if he has something to say it should be taken into consideration and be reality/truth distinguished from imagination/lies by logical thinking process rather than labelling a person and prison opposite opinions outside credible society.

What do you mean "logical thinking process"? You sound like a Greek philosopher, insisting that things can be sorted out by "logical thought" rather than actual observation and factual evidence.

Forget the rest of the stuff. Don't bother quoting anything, i'm not going to read it. I just want you to explain that last part about "logical thinking process" sorting out the truth from the lies.

[willcowskitz]

I'll start from the end, and oh yes I will elaborate.

Forget the rest of the stuff. Don't bother quoting anything, i'm not going to read it."

You can't just go through my posts and into details of them without expecting me to do exactly the same by trying to explain them.

Here, you state that "Bush is an idiot" say that it's a fact, and then go off on three seperate analogies instead of supporting your thesis.

Here, you make more allusions to Bush's lack of intelligence, based on his public speaking ability.

Back that statement about the economy up. Before you do, i'm just going to toss out a wild guess and say you're not qualified to make that statement. On the off chance you are qualified to make that statement, I expect a bibliography.

That fact is based on every performance I've seen of him on TV (yes "public speaking ability" but do you really know how bad it can get even at that?), and things I've read about how he handles U.S. economy and about his reputation in general. Though I myself said that importance of opinions and views shouldn't be a matter of credibility from their presenters behalf, Bush hasn't to my knowledge ever said anything intelligent himself. The speeches (yes I know its a common routine) he keeps aren't written by him but he's merely a face for the citizens that has distant "sympathetic" feeling to it and who can by punctuating certain words and talking slowly (probably meant to be associated with weight (importance) of his words) convince the people that they're on the right side. Bush in this sense seems to be nothing more than the emotionally manipulative side of Moore. Same sh*t different package, and of course different side. I also did ask you: on contrary, have you ever witnessed Bush to think (aloud) or act to his advantage? My statements of Bush's intelligence is based on his own performing in public, and that's mainly how I formed my opinions of him. On the other hand, millions of people keep witnessing his clumsiness but are either too blind to notice anything "loose", or their will to believe in their authority exceeds the curiosity to know what things really are all about (what I said about propaganda and irresponsibility, could be applied here).  My statement about Bush's bad economy is due to what I have read:  Bush wants to go to Mars, that's great, long term investment from the government to support ambitious (at the current state of the world: megalomanic) goals of something that's not even distantly useful for economy and wellfare. Tax cuts on the wealthy, at best in the richest 2% of the population - Bush convinced that this will be good for the economy (as did Reagan), but it has resulted in losing of almost 3 million jobs (obviously not in the wealthiest scale), and 2/3 of some tax cut by Bush went to the richest ~10% of the population. Among republicans, isn't this common? There exists the wealthier elite that supports and finances their favoured politicians in order to motivate their re-election and to ensure that the inner circle stays in the 1% (just a number from the back of my head) richest? Aren't relationships what raised Bush to presidency anyway, according to the information I have read on the subject of his family connections to the industrial world.

After I comment on public speaking, you withdraw from the previous point about intelligence and refer to public performances as "important", without explaining how.

I DID explain why they are important, it reads right there: Because of the responsibility and credibility that such powerful person should be comfortable with. Bush's clumsiness and weak verbal presentations (social fear or pressure cannot be used as an excuse, since the road to presidency is evidently filled with such activity anyway) might suit the way he (is made to) represent(s) things that the citizens want to hear most, but it doesn't give me the slightest clue that would support the idea that he knows what he's talking about, which for some people doesn't mean a thing but for most (I hope) is alerting. Bush does not run the country, he's nothing but a "performing artist" - not a composer. AGAIN, if you do have any knowledge that is contrary to my beliefs/opinions on him, share it.

Even though one is a clarification of the other, the two statements are totally different! The first is an analogy that deals with individuals, and the second draws a relationship between the # of "mindless people" and "likelihood of war".

The first is not an analogy, it is an act that raises probability for war. The second is the result of the cause. This is also related to your final point (which you're probably eager to get to if you're even reading this) where you request me to explain the "logical thinking process":  If everyone was conscious and intelligent, we wouldn't have wars because the indifferences could be ethically (mathematically) resolved before they result in using of physical force. However this is not the setting, and therefore the world is not like a 600 million groups of ten people that would know how to live in an anarchy because each of them possesses the intellectual requirements for free life and the responsibility which this freedom gives them. Instead, there are 5% thinkers and 95% guidable masses (numbers are fictional, do not get stuck in them though you probably are dying to do just that). When one from the 5% has enough determination and means to direct people where he wants, he can "compose" conflicts, whether against a tyranny or against victims of tyranny, be it a revolution or a devastative suppression of a demonstrating group of people against the current leading power. Every time someone from the 95% steps onto the other side of the line, the next confronted person from the 95% is more motivated to do the same, and so on until we have enough physical mass to overrun certain other masses. This way, everyone who picks a side in the early stages before the actual conflict, is guilty of war - They didn't stop to reason out and gather information and try to "logically process" to find out what is the role of this individual with obvious problems with someone else and what is his relation to the world as in what CAN he request from it? Unlike many people (seem to) think, ethics isn't dependable on an individual's view, but it is to try gain enough understanding of the relationship between a free individual and his surroundings, in simplified form "What can we do and what do we have to do." - This ultimate truth can't ever be achieved by staying in the low perspective that the ego limits us to, because it twists this proportion between the individual and the world he lives in with numerous other similar individuals. Oh and by the way I'm not a communist, I'm still searching for the "ultimately fair structure and model of a society".

What do you mean "logical thinking process"? You sound like a Greek philosopher, insisting that things can be sorted out by "logical thought" rather than actual observation and factual evidence.

Ethics, reasoning and understanding of causalities and corresponding to them in an optimal fashion. I don't know why you seem to exclude "actual observation" and "factual evidence" from this process, cause of course (sidenote: I did not at any point deny it) this logical thinking process requires as much of those two as it is possible to gather.


P.s.  This argument about my self-expressing has become very tiring and I suggest we drop it, after all you have already made your point of "what I say can be confusing to others" clear.

[Peachy_Keen]

You can't just go through my posts and into details of them without expecting me to do exactly the same by trying to explain them.  

Quote away then. I don't want you to keep clarifying and "explaining" your views until they make sense, but hey that's your choice.

The first is not an analogy, it is an act that raises probability for war.

Wrong! The first statement is a definitive one, and states "there will" be wars. I'm sure you meant to say something else, but expecting me to not hold you accountable for what you say is silly.

Moving on...

The argument "Bush has no Stage Presence, therefore he is an idiot." just doesn't cut it.

Can you tell me what grades Bush got in school, and the schools he went to? Can you quote any moments where Bush surprised me in his speeches by either saying something that you perceived as "stupid" or very intelligent, and tell us which speeches they were in? What jobs did Bush hold before he became president, and how was his performance rated?

If you can't answer all of those questions, how can you tell me that I can't "argue" that he's not stupid?

As I said before, you haven't demonstrated any operating knowledge. All you've done is make a load of generalizations and then expand on them. If that's how you want to debate, then go ahead and do that. It's just that you told me you were open to new ideas, and I figured you would like to try a more precise method of agitation.

We can drop the specifics of the debate and I can tell you what I mean if you like, maybe you'll be a bit more receptive if you don't have so much material to defend.

[willcowskitz]

Quote away then. I don't want you to keep clarifying and "explaining" your views until they make sense, but hey that's your choice.

Irrational! By clarifying and ""explaining"" my views I'm trying to make you see why they make sense. Where is your motive anyway?

Wrong! The first statement is a definitive one, and states "there will" be wars. I'm sure you meant to say something else, but expecting me to not hold you accountable for what you say is silly.

You're losing the hold of it. You no longer seem to have anything to say besides trying to find "errors" in my posts and then go into detail of what I have stated, and if I request information or opinions related to same subjects from you, you plain ignore it and get back to "where I was not 100% accurately defining the reasons for my statements and the source of my information". What is your role here, anyway? Did you jump into the "debate" to defend your national identity, George W. Bush, R.Henry or only to try pick errors from my texts believing that finding holes in the prosecutive material will work as a perfect defense? I'm tired of explaining my simple (sometimes metaphysical) explanations of the world and it's causalities in other words only to make them clear to YOU, who refuse to figure them out because they aren't clear (refer to my first paragraph of this post).

Moving on...

The argument "Bush has no Stage Presence, therefore he is an idiot." just doesn't cut it.

Oh no! Just hold on there Speedy Gonzales, not so fast! No wait! I already went into detail of how and why I have formed my current opinion of your Big Brother, or was it too complicated? - because I thought it was very simple and not involving too many big numbers to figure out. Although I have asked you to represent any evidence that would contradict with mine, you have been skipping over YOUR turn to participate in sharing knowledge to update views. I must ask again; What is your motive to write nothing but increasingly crippled pseudo-argumentation against how I represent my thoughts and you having trouble understanding them?

Can you tell me what grades Bush got in school, and the schools he went to? Can you quote any moments where Bush surprised me in his speeches by either saying something that you perceived as "stupid" or very intelligent, and tell us which speeches they were in? What jobs did Bush hold before he became president, and how was his performance rated?

I only know that he went to Yale and Harvard, not about his grades (which are totally irrelevant for people who go to such universities). Republican family that has relations to megaindustries (involving oil?) - lots of ca$h to spend on education. Yale and Harvard were more than happy to accept the annual (or whatever) fees that the Bush's clan wanted to invest in their president-to-be's schooling. After all, education is all about credibility, and if money can buy something that could even a bit substitute Bush's (Jr.) verbal intelligence and actual performance as a politician, why not?

If you can't answer all of those questions, how can you tell me that I can't "argue" that he's not stupid?

Are you already desperate enough to twist my words? - I did not at any point claim that you couldn't argue contrary to my beliefs about Bush's intelligence (I'm getting pretty sick of continuous repetition which the opposite side of this argument has the tendency to force me to engage in), but instead I only asked you to lay out evidence supporting your (obviously opposite) view. How come you haven't answered one single thing regarding the actual debated subjects? Who ever did grant you the position of the questioner or interrogator that could conduct the argumentation and regulate it's pace? How about you put in some contribution for instance?

As I said before, you haven't demonstrated any operating knowledge. All you've done is make a load of generalizations and then expand on them. If that's how you want to debate, then go ahead and do that. It's just that you told me you were open to new ideas, and I figured you would like to try a more precise method of agitation.

Forget my generalizations and ant societies for ***'s sake. Please. Just get into what I have said regarding the ACTUAL subject and respond to it as you see fit (and be sure to not be hypocritical about the quality of information you present). I'm very tired of reading through your posts and I'm nearing the end of my patience - You're only creating chaos for the sake of feeling alive through it, alive in any sense.

We can drop the specifics of the debate and I can tell you what I mean if you like, maybe you'll be a bit more receptive if you don't have so much material to defend.

Defend? Your most obvious hypocritical act in all the posts between us two has been to blurt out your original "You don't present much actual information" statement, then continuing with your stream of indetermined posts that seem to serve no other purpose than to defend by being offensive (refer to my second paragraph).


Just say it if you have "it".

[Peachy_Keen]

Your insulting tone was totally unneccesary. I'm not looking to enlighten you with my views of politics. I don't care what positions you are advocating, or what my stance is on any of the issues you are advocating. I'd like to apologise if the tone of this post is harsh, that isn't what it is intended to sound like, but it seems like you're so wrapped up in defending everything you've ever said that I need to go straight to the point.

I asked for you to back up your comments about Bush being "stupid" and you respond with some half witted answer about his family being able to buy his way through school, when you can't even tell me for sure what school he went to. Is that your justification? You didn't even bother answering my question about the jobs or speech either.

Just a few posts ago you told me "it couldn't be argued" that Bush wasn't an idiot, and you won't even give me any solid evidence to support your claims? Are you refusing to acknowledge that there is information you don't have that could possibly nullify your argument?

Now it's my turn to be belligerent: You do not insult ANYONE if you cannot back up your word. What you made was a very serious allegation against another human being, and you have no proof whatsoever? I don't care who you insult, it's not your place to go around judging people you don't know and deciding who is and is not smart.

It's not my job to "share" my information with you when you obviously haven't done your own homework. I don't want you to sit there and say "baa" while I give you my view of the situation. If you can't pursue your own information and get a relatively accurate view of a simple situation on your own, i'm wasting my time.

There's that old saying about teaching a man to fish blah blah blah he can eat for the rest of his life. Think about that.

And before you start calling me names again, go do some of your own research. Find some facts and bring them back to the table and there will be something to debate.

When you come back with those facts, you might be surprised that there is no longer anything to debate.

[willcowskitz]

I am done with you. You're just ignoring whatever I say regardless of it's informational value, and the reasons you insisted me to represent on "Bush's intelligence", is up there if you look at it, but obviously you didn't: I mentioned his failure to heal U.S. economy - I could bring in his conservative views and interpreting the Bible to support his anti-abort legislations, all in all he is a brake to development - What about the tax cuts on the wealthiest few percentage of the population? Was it good for economy? Do you know? Cause I do, and I said what I know about it. Of course I am "defending" (misleading word when used in context of "[re]clarifying my thoughts") my views. But its all the same what I say, you will refuse to realize it, probably because it insults you as a citizen of U.S. if your president is a complete failure - even though it shouldn't (unless you're a mental case(not directed at you)). You're saying that I'm saying nothing, but take a little time to inspect your own posts and their content - is there anything that would suggest I am dealing with a person that has something to add to the subject? Point it out, underline it. You can't, there's nothing. Your motives for posting got lost in carrying out the act of articulating in verbally convincing carefully thought out rhetorics that would leave the weight of your speech floating in air and have me fire at it with my desperate attempts to make myself anymore clear on the most irrelevant details. Intentional divertion? You're on a loop, repeating and relying on your one card of stating that I have not answered your questions. However I do agree with you about one thing now: There is nothing to debate. Not alone.

P.s.  I don't recall calling you names other than the obviously absurd Speedy Gonzales remark. I apologize for my aggressive touch in the last posts, it was due to frustration from lack of response from your behalf and in the end serves nobody, not even the actual process of trying to form as complete opinions as possible.

[Peachy_Keen]

I am done with you. You're just ignoring whatever I say regardless of it's informational value, and the reasons you insisted me to represent on "Bush's intelligence", is up there if you look at it, but obviously you didn't

Actually you made a lot of vague references to things but didn't actually demonstrate anything.

Tax cut for the wealthy? How much? What tax brackets? What was the date? Was the economy already going down? Failing to heal the economy? Is it the presidents job to keep the economy "booming"? With the dot coms and other factors, weren't we already heading into a recession? Does the fact he has religious values make him stupid?

You say a lot of things here, but you fail to prove any of them. None of what you are saying has informational value to me, because I don't know how you came to any of your conclusions. There's a difference between telling people your opinions and having a useful and informative dialogue. I repeatedly asked you if you wanted to "get off" the Bush debate, and said that my point didn't neccesarily have to do with that, but it was you who kept bringing it up, and then accused me of ignoring it. I don't care about what your political beliefs are, I want you to have a good reason for having them.

Now stop being childish. This never had to become "personal".

[willcowskitz]

I have no interest in contributing to bringing you the information you could as well get for yourself (if you really wanted to).

I am not here to prove anything, I never was. I was here to gather view and possibly share mine. However the communication does not work, and I don't even care anymore.

Yes I was being childish, this shouldn't be personal. I am conscious of my overly tempered mood and I also explained what it resulted from. I am ready to leave this debate and return to the peace and harmony of Flora & Fauna.

[abe]

go republicans!

And by the way, the winner goes to spatulla, closely followed by wilkowtz and donjuan. xtmbi fought bravely too, but I beleive he was the only one taken things seriosly here.

[xvimbi]

go republicans!

And by the way, the winner goes to spatulla, closely followed by wilkowtz and donjuan. xtmbi fought bravely too, but I beleive he was the only one taken things seriosly here.

Sorry for that, I'll try to avoid this in the future. Sorry, again!

[abe]

lol theres no need for apologies  

[adidaschica]

oo0o0o0o i have one but im the one who was dumb..

i was like peeing....and my necklace fell in there somehow and i spent a long time figuring how to get it out....then i spent the next two hours trying to fish it out with chopsticks...


and once i went to a violin lesson and i forgot my violin..

and i heard on the radio once that a girl was so0 bored she stared at an orange juice bottle for 20 minutes because it said 'concentrate'

[JK]

and once i went to a violin lesson and i forgot my violin..

I once went to a piano lesson and forgot my piano....it's a bugger to get up the escalators on the London underground!!!! (sorry I've just realised how unfunny that is! )

[adidaschica]

LOL THATS REALLY FUNNY!

[robert_henry]

Earlier we were discussing propaganda.  Propagandists on both sides obviously have their own agendas, but that doesn't necessarily make the information untrue (research the definition of propaganda).  As I stated before, and what should be obvious by now even to the most extreme partisan, Moore goes beyond propaganda into the realm of falsification, and he's being called on it from probably the most unlikely source:  Saudi Arabia.

This is relevant to this thread because people are too stupid to research the information in his film, and blindly accept it.  

https://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/08/01/wsaud01.xml

There are so many of these examples out there...it only takes a few minutes of research, people...

Robert Henry

[Swan]

 to all you people who have taken this TONGUE IN CHEEK thread and stuffed it with serious crap that should have been in their own threads!

The dumbest moments I've seen lately are here in this thread ... Perhaps there should be a warning on threads:  IDIOTS BEWARE - This NON PIANO/NON POLITICAL thread contains thoughts from adolescants, HUMOUR   (some of it obviously too sophisticated for others to grasp) and views that may offend.  ENTER AT OWN RISK.

C'mon people!!! Why does everything have to be taken so seriously.  So someone wanted to share DUMB PEOPLE MOMENTS - the title enough should have told you what sort of comments would be in here!!  Trying to 'correct' what they say is like walking into a brothel and lecturing the ladies about their immodest clothing.

LET THE KIDS HAVE THEIR FUN AND GET OUT OF THEIR FACE!!!!!

EVERYONE is dumb, and if you think you've never had a dumb moment that someone ELSE is laughing about (either to themselves or with others), then be patient; it'll happen.

My dumb moment?  Telling others they shouldn't be telling others what to do when I've just told those people telling others what to do what to do!!!!!

Anyway,   to all of you who don't know how to start a new thread.

[Antnee]

 to all you people who have taken this TONGUE IN CHEEK thread and stuffed it with serious crap that should have been in their own threads!

The dumbest moments I've seen lately are here in this thread ... Perhaps there should be a warning on threads:  IDIOTS BEWARE - This NON PIANO/NON POLITICAL thread contains thoughts from adolescants, HUMOUR   (some of it obviously too sophisticated for others to grasp) and views that may offend.  ENTER AT OWN RISK.

C'mon people!!! Why does everything have to be taken so seriously.  So someone wanted to share DUMB PEOPLE MOMENTS - the title enough should have told you what sort of comments would be in here!!  Trying to 'correct' what they say is like walking into a brothel and lecturing the ladies about their immodest clothing.

LET THE KIDS HAVE THEIR FUN AND GET OUT OF THEIR FACE!!!!!

EVERYONE is dumb, and if you think you've never had a dumb moment that someone ELSE is laughing about (either to themselves or with others), then be patient; it'll happen.

My dumb moment?  Telling others they shouldn't be telling others what to do when I've just told those people telling others what to do what to do!!!!!

Anyway,   to all of you who don't know how to start a new thread.

   <------- heheh smileys always help end on a pleasant note don't they??  

But I commend robert for managing to make it relevnt to the thread...  

-Tony-

[robert_henry]

 to all you people who have taken this TONGUE IN CHEEK thread and stuffed it with serious crap that should have been in their own threads!

The dumbest moments I've seen lately are here in this thread ... Perhaps there should be a warning on threads:  IDIOTS BEWARE - This NON PIANO/NON POLITICAL thread contains thoughts from adolescants, HUMOUR   (some of it obviously too sophisticated for others to grasp) and views that may offend.  ENTER AT OWN RISK.

C'mon people!!! Why does everything have to be taken so seriously.  

Dear "Thread Police",

Why does everything have to be dumbed down, pardon the pun?  Yeah, this thread was created with a certain idea in mind, but as is typical of many threads on this and many other forums (including Usenet), it wound up turning many corners and was stretched in many different directions.  I know you didn't specifically refer to me, but this forum became serious and political long before I got to it.  I find it relevant that the public is largely uninformed about very important life and death issues.  Then they vote, which ultimately affects me and my family.  Swan, you can voice your opinion as can everyone else.  But, after 92 posts this is where the thread ended up.  Get over it.  

Obligatory Smiley:  

Robert Henry

[Antnee]

I don't have any problems with threads changing in direction... It happens in normal conversation all the time!!! Some of these issues are important and This thread was started for fun so its all good. I'm glad people like robert post to voice their opinions and knowledge... Besides he can play the Godowsky etudes... Don't mess with him...  

-Tony-

[Saturn]

Apparently there's a name for what has happened to this thread.  It's known as Godwin's Law.  Here is its definition:

"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."  There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups.  However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.

Taken from: https://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_Law.html

- Saturn

[bernhard]

Apparently there's a name for what has happened to this thread.  It's known as Godwin's Law.  Here is its definition:

"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."  There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups.  However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.

Taken from: https://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_Law.html

- Saturn

Interesting law.

However, it does not seem to have worked on this thread which kept going strong, even after the nazis were mentioned.

Or was that a case of the codicil?

On the other hand, the law seems to cover all cases, therefore it is unfalsifiable and therefore trivial.

Sorry...

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[Saturn]

Interesting law.

However, it does not seem to have worked on this thread which kept going strong, even after the nazis were mentioned.

Or was that a case of the codicil?

On the other hand, the law seems to cover all cases, therefore it is unfalsifiable and therefore trivial.

Sorry...

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

Actually, if I understood it correctly, the law itself states only that the longer a thread continues, the greater the probability that someone will make a comparison to Nazis or Hitler.

The idea that a thread will stop once the comparison is made is not a part of the law, merely the tradition of many groups.  The tradition is pretty well-founded, because usually once such a comparison is made, the argument itself goes to hell (just as it did here).

I just came across it while searching for something, and found it humorous and interesting.  Apparently it's a more popular phenomenon than I was aware of.  A google search for "Godwin's Law" (with quotes) yields 14,900 entries.  See this page for more info and some clarification of the law:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

- Saturn

[xvimbi]

"Godwin's Law"

Finally, someone got it!!

Godwin's Law (I consider it a debating technique) never fails to stir things up.

The trophy goes to Saturn!

[robert_henry]

Godwin's Law...never knew about it...that's pretty funny.  It's tongue-in-cheek obviously.

It is a strange coincidence that I said something similar earlier in this very thread:

"I think the IQ of a person is directly proportional to how long it takes that person to use either of the following words in describing another person or thought: 'Nazi' or 'Hitler'."

We'll call it 'Henry's Law'.  

Actually, I think this thread is quite remarkable in that it has remained so on topic.  It's not like we are talking about Spiderman.

Robert Henry

[Saturn]

Godwin's Law...never knew about it...that's pretty funny.  It's tongue-in-cheek obviously.

It is tongue-in-cheek to a certain degree, but it was also an experiment.  It was an attempt by Godwin to counteract, the "Nazi-comparison meme".  See this interesting article he wrote on the topic for Wired magazine:

https://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.10/godwin.if_pr.html

xvimbi:

Finally, someone got it!!
 
Godwin's Law (I consider it a debating technique) never fails to stir things up.
 
The trophy goes to Saturn!

Woo hoo!

I'm actually kind of surprised I hadn't heard of Godwin's Law until just recently.

- Saturn