| Author |
Topic:
Winter-Spring 2008: The Republican and Democratic Primaries and Caucuses thread.
|
Emperor_Billy_Bob
Registered:
Aug '00
|
Date Posted:
5/13 10:24am
Subject:
RE: Winter-Spring 2008: The Republican and Democratic Primaries and Caucuses thread.
|
But your stance is opening up an entire fascinating panoply of possible discussions on violence, terrorism, and the justification for violence and terrorism.
Why do we accept violence in wartime? What gives government the right to the "monopoly of force?" Our entire system of government is based around force or implied/threatened use of force. Violence is what makes the world go round, you could say.
When is war acceptable? When is it not? Is the murder of innocents ever acceptable?
Its just a big topic to respond to with simple concrete "right or wrong" retorts.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Souderwan
Registered:
Jun '05
|
Date Posted:
5/13 10:26am
Subject:
RE: Winter-Spring 2008: The Republican and Democratic Primaries and Caucuses thread.
|
In this context, it is quite simple, actually.
As for the larger topic, that's for another thread. I could get into a whole long discussion about the Law of Armed Conflict as agreed to by most of the nations of the world, but it's neither here nor there.
-----signature-----
"When we hurt each other we should write it down in the sand,
so the winds of forgiveness can make it go away for good. When
we help each other we should chisel it in stone, lest we never
forget the love of a friend." ~Godefroy
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Emperor_Billy_Bob
Registered:
Aug '00
|
Date Posted:
5/13 10:29am
Subject:
RE: Winter-Spring 2008: The Republican and Democratic Primaries and Caucuses thread.
- Date Edited:
5/13 10:30am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Emperor_Billy_Bob
|
Souderwan posted:
In this context, it is quite simple, actually.
But is it though? Is it right to lump Ayers in with terrorists like Bin Laden when Ayers had a cause one can sympathize with AND never killed anyone? Is a simple black and white answer really necessary? Isn't one right to feel ambigous about someone whose cause you completely sympathize with, but whose tactics you do not condone, while at the same time that person has not crossed the line and actually killed someone?
Souderwan posted:
As for the larger topic, that's for another thread. I could get into a whole long discussion about the Law of Armed Conflict as agreed to by most of the nations of the world, but it's neither here nor there.
Just because something is the law does not mean it is right, or that it is a moral standard.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Souderwan
Registered:
Jun '05
|
Date Posted:
5/13 10:35am
Subject:
RE: Winter-Spring 2008: The Republican and Democratic Primaries and Caucuses thread.
|
1. I never lumped Ayers in with anyone.
2. Yes, it is a simple answer for me. I'm not talking about what other people feel or should feel.
3. There's a spectrum of things from good to bad. Simply because Ayers isn't at the same location as UBL on the bad scale, doesn't mean he's not on the bad side. The fact that he's completely and utterly unrepentant makes it worse.
-----signature-----
"When we hurt each other we should write it down in the sand,
so the winds of forgiveness can make it go away for good. When
we help each other we should chisel it in stone, lest we never
forget the love of a friend." ~Godefroy
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Emperor_Billy_Bob
Registered:
Aug '00
|
Date Posted:
5/13 10:42am
Subject:
RE: Winter-Spring 2008: The Republican and Democratic Primaries and Caucuses thread.
- Date Edited:
5/13 10:43am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Emperor_Billy_Bob
|
Souderwan posted:
1. I never lumped Ayers in with anyone.
Calling him a "terrorist" repeatedly is, in post 9-11 America, doing just that. I wasn't so much responding to you as much as responding to people like DarthLassic who keep throwing around "terrorist" "terrorist" "terrorist" over and over again in order to draw on the post 9-11 emotional resonance of that term.
Souderwan posted:
3. There's a spectrum of things from good to bad. Simply because Ayers isn't at the same location as UBL on the bad scale, doesn't mean he's not on the bad side. The fact that he's completely and utterly unrepentant makes it worse.
What is there for him to repent OF though? His cause was correct, I don't think he has changed his mind on that. He did property damage that by now has been repaired.
A call for him to renounce the use of violence is understandable, and I think he should. Its very possible that he feels, however, that after having given more than a decade of his life to this insane underground terrorist organization that him coming out and saying, "What we believed in was right, the way we did it was wrong" would feel like betraying what he had stood for, when in fact he was correct. I would probably feel that way were I in his place
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Souderwan
Registered:
Jun '05
|
Date Posted:
5/13 10:47am
Subject:
RE: Winter-Spring 2008: The Republican and Democratic Primaries and Caucuses thread.
|
Emperor_Billy_Bob posted:
Calling him a "terrorist" repeatedly is, in post 9-11 America, doing just that. I wasn't so much responding to you as much as responding to people like DarthLassic who keep throwing around "terrorist" "terrorist" "terrorist" over and over again in order to draw on the post 9-11 emotional resonance of that term.
Well, that's not something I'm going to worry about. I know what he was and the context of the word as it applies to him. I see your point, though.
E_B_B posted:
What is there for him to repent OF though? His cause was correct, I don't think he has changed his mind on that. He did property damage that by now has been repaired.
A call for him to renounce the use of violence is understandable, and I think he should. Its very possible that he feels, however, that after having given more than a decade of his life to this insane underground terrorist organization that him coming out and saying, "What we believed in was right, the way we did it was wrong" would feel like betraying what he had stood for, when in fact he was correct. I would probably feel that way were I in his place
And that is why I have nothing but disdain for the man. Someone of his purported intellect should be able to stand up and say "what we did was unnecessary and counterproductive"--i.e. the truth. Look. We're not going to agree on that point. He was wrong. He doesn't see it that way. And for that reason, he is someone I'll forgive but otherwise avoid.
-----signature-----
"When we hurt each other we should write it down in the sand,
so the winds of forgiveness can make it go away for good. When
we help each other we should chisel it in stone, lest we never
forget the love of a friend." ~Godefroy
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Emperor_Billy_Bob
Registered:
Aug '00
|
Date Posted:
5/13 10:49am
Subject:
RE: Winter-Spring 2008: The Republican and Democratic Primaries and Caucuses thread.
|
Sometimes people aren't necessarily having a head to head straight on battle of wits trying to disprove each other. There is no real argument here, Souderwan, I am really trying to elucidate some thought on the issue, because to me it is a fascinating one.
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, I am pondering and trying to understand both your viewpoint and my own.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Souderwan
Registered:
Jun '05
|
Date Posted:
5/13 10:52am
Subject:
RE: Winter-Spring 2008: The Republican and Democratic Primaries and Caucuses thread.
|
|
In that case, I ask you to consider the Confederates and their actions that precipitated the Civil War and then all the actions of their ancestors for years to come. They felt just as strongly--if not more so--as Ayers and the Weather Underground that their cause was just and right. Are their actions only less forgivable to you because, through the lens of history (written by the victor), we've come to the conclusion that their cause was wrong?
-----signature-----
"When we hurt each other we should write it down in the sand,
so the winds of forgiveness can make it go away for good. When
we help each other we should chisel it in stone, lest we never
forget the love of a friend." ~Godefroy
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
ellybeanjay
Registered:
Jul '00
|
Date Posted:
5/13 11:03am
Subject:
RE: Winter-Spring 2008: The Republican and Democratic Primaries and Caucuses thread.
|
Souderwan posted:
You'd never know it reading this thread, but by a more than 2-1 margin, Democrats think Senator Clinton should stay in the race.
I'm wondering who these people are. I totally understand and accept that my group of friends does not a random sample make, but all the dems I know are Obama people and the ONE person that I know who is a Clinton fan thinks the time has come to drop out. So whenever I hear these things I'm wondering who the hell these people are.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Emperor_Billy_Bob
Registered:
Aug '00
|
Date Posted:
5/13 11:14am
Subject:
RE: Winter-Spring 2008: The Republican and Democratic Primaries and Caucuses thread.
|
Souderwan posted:
In that case, I ask you to consider the Confederates and their actions that precipitated the Civil War and then all the actions of their ancestors for years to come. They felt just as strongly--if not more so--as Ayers and the Weather Underground that their cause was just and right. Are their actions only less forgivable to you because, through the lens of history (written by the victor), we've come to the conclusion that their cause was wrong?
The Confederates are to me the opposite of Ayers. Their cause was corrupt and wrong, their tactics were fine I believe, in the way that any act of statescraft of politics is "fine", that is I think that all but the most extreme of them just are, and are neither good nor bad.
Take the slavery issue out of it, and just have two hypothetical nations, and one tries to secede from the other and loses, I don't think there is a right or a wrong there.
Ultimately I think labelling things "right" or "wrong" is the easy way out. I fundamentally disagree with the strict totalitarian moralities of the desert monotheisms and the wishy-washy school of moral relativism. Labelling things as "right" or "wrong" is to fundamentally deny one of the saddest truths of human existence - there is no central divine authority that hands out judgment for the actions that people do, might often does make "right".
Thats a fact that people respond to in two ways - inventing a God who will enforce "right" and "wrong" in some divine and not-readily-apparent on Earth way or abjuring the very notion of there being a right and wrong at all.
Morality is, I think, fundamentally based on human empathy. We enforce "morality" because we, deep down, have empathy for other human beings. It has no divine or immortal cause - it is simply our desire, on the whole, to look out for each other, because that is how society functions best and because we are emotionally evolved that way.
As Nietsche said "God is dead", however, we need to acknowledge the REALITY behind our morality and only then are we being honest. It doesn't mean we abandon our morality because "God didn't do it", it means that we enforce our morality because it is what is for the Greater Good. WE enforce our morality, that absolutely does not mean that it is meaningless. That is why I think "values" morality such as prejudice against homosexuality is silly - simply intolerance given the mantle of "right" and "wrong" in order to stop thought.
Getting back to the point after waxing philosophical, I guess my answer is yes. I don't think what the Confederacy did was "wrong", I think they took their chances and they lost. Its something that played out, it happened. I see no fundamental need to assign a morality value to it, all I want to do is understand why and how it happened. That would be all there is to say about the issue had they not been fighting for an unjustifiable cause like human slavery.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Souderwan
Registered:
Jun '05
|
Date Posted:
5/13 11:16am
Subject:
RE: Winter-Spring 2008: The Republican and Democratic Primaries and Caucuses thread.
- Date Edited:
5/13 11:21am (2 edits total)
Edited By:
Souderwan
|
ellybeanjay posted:
Souderwan posted:
You'd never know it reading this thread, but by a more than 2-1 margin, Democrats think Senator Clinton should stay in the race.
I'm wondering who these people are. I totally understand and accept that my group of friends does not a random sample make, but all the dems I know are Obama people and the ONE person that I know who is a Clinton fan thinks the time has come to drop out. So whenever I hear these things I'm wondering who the hell these people are.
I'd probably chalk it up to self-selection, Carmen. We tend to congregate with like-minded people who reinforce our attitudes rather than constantly challenge them. Oftentimes, that's a simple matter of geography/socio-economic locale.
For example, 98% of my peers are McCain supporters, but that's hardly representative.
Edit: E_B_B, there's a lot I could respond to in that, but not without completely derailing this thread (more than it has been so far). I'm heading out the door, too. So I'll make you a deal. Make a new thread and I'll meet you there if you really want to discuss it. Or, we can just go the PM route.
-----signature-----
"When we hurt each other we should write it down in the sand,
so the winds of forgiveness can make it go away for good. When
we help each other we should chisel it in stone, lest we never
forget the love of a friend." ~Godefroy
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DarthLassic007
Registered:
Nov '02
|
Date Posted:
5/13 11:40am
Subject:
RE: Winter-Spring 2008: The Republican and Democratic Primaries and Caucuses thread.
|
Emperor_Billy_Bob posted:
ApolloSmileGirl posted:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When exactly did Ayers join the race for president?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently some point twenty years ago when he hung out with Barack.
I guarantee that the media and the JCC would have a field day on McCain if McCain had the same relationship with some wack job who bombed an abortion clinic or a gay bar that Obama has with Ayers.
I guess bombing government buildings is less serious than bombing abortion clinics.
-----signature-----
Veni, Vidi, Vici. - Julius Caesar
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Emperor_Billy_Bob
Registered:
Aug '00
|
Date Posted:
5/13 11:42am
Subject:
RE: Winter-Spring 2008: The Republican and Democratic Primaries and Caucuses thread.
|
DarthLassic007 posted:
I guess bombing government buildings is less serious than bombing abortion clinics.
Bombing abortion clinics in which people get killed is more serious than bombing government buildings in which people do not get killed, yes.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabba-wocky
Registered:
May '03
|
Date Posted:
5/13 11:44am
Subject:
RE: Winter-Spring 2008: The Republican and Democratic Primaries and Caucuses thread.
- Date Edited:
5/13 11:50am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Jabba-wocky
|
Apparently, I've walked into a huge argument, so give me some time to go back and read what on Earth is going on. However, I just posted to say that these gaps between primaries are killer. First there was the month between Texas and Pennsylvania, and now there's 17 days between North Carolina and Oregon. If the recent pace of this thread is any indication, though, it seems like we won't run out of stuff to talk about before we cross the finish line and close this one up on May 20th. However, it'll be different without any new results to digest. Oh well.
Souderwan/Carmen: National polls about "wanting the race to continue" are pretty meaningless, I would suspect. After all, by definition, you'd expect the majority of people polled to have already voted. Further still, you'd expect any Hillary supporter (about 48-49% of Democrats, by votes tallied to date) that already voted to say they "want to see it continue," since that's the only way she has any chance of winning (because, realistically, no one takes the question as "should Senator Obama drop out of the race?"). So, once you account for both these effects, it's not clear that anything terribly meaningful is being said at all.
-----signature-----
Penitent & Unforgiven  Sorry JediAngela The Yankees are awesome.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DarthLassic007
Registered:
Nov '02
|
Date Posted:
5/13 11:45am
Subject:
RE: Winter-Spring 2008: The Republican and Democratic Primaries and Caucuses thread.
|
Emperor_Billy_Bob posted:
DarthLassic007 posted:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess bombing government buildings is less serious than bombing abortion clinics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bombing abortion clinics in which people get killed is more serious than bombing government buildings in which people do not get killed, yes.
What if no one died in either the government building or the abortion clinic? What if an equal number of people died in each one? Is it still all right to do either one?
-----signature-----
Veni, Vidi, Vici. - Julius Caesar
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
