[Silver]

yes, i feel the same way about protesters at abortion clinics. i may not agree with abortion but i respect the constitution and supreme court decisions on these matters regarding the "pulse of the nation" and leave it alone.

and yes, you obviously have much more time than I to look up the sources. i also respect your views on a lot of topics as they are well researched, even though i may not agree, and you are above playing the "high and mighty vet" game. i saw that sign on several sites when i was researching code pink and just snagged the jpeg. however, their comments in the youtube video are still enough for me to label them as non-friendlies.

Well, that's good to know. I'm the opposite way, I don't mind the protestors at all. I think they often do themselves and their cause a disservice, but I don't mind the fact that they are there.

As far as the research goes, it took about 5 seconds. I'm busy, but not THAT busy.

 

[MikeD]

If a bunch of old women in pink scare you away from the recruiters', you're probably not cut out for that line of work anyhow.

 

[manimal]

Well, that's good to know. I'm the opposite way, I don't mind the protestors at all. I think they often do themselves and their cause a disservice, but I don't mind the fact that they are there.

As far as the research goes, it took about 5 seconds. I'm busy, but not THAT busy.

i'm posting in between calls and sometimes while i'm driving i often read my post and have to do a lot of editing because one paragraph may have been constructed over several hours and my train of thought has shifted numerous times.

 

[fluff]

but we don't harbor terrorists against ourselves.

So would you agree that the term terrorist really has no meaning as it means a different thing to each country? That the US harbours people who have committed acts such as car-bombings is documented and undeniable, but of course the CIA defends these people as freedom-fighters, or counter-terrorism operatives...

it appears you're conflating 'harboring' with 'citizenship' (active -vs- passive). once again, taking your example of the 9/11 hijackers being citizens of saudi arabia, but their actions not known beforehand by their gov't (which would have made them harborists), there can be no moral justification for taking military action against the gov't, which you seem to imply does exist. i am puzzled why you still don't find justification for taking military action in afghanistan. or did i miss that?

Well, as the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden if the US could provide evidence of his involvement in terrorist acts then I would have to say that the justification wasn't really the one you put forward. The Taliban were (are) a repressive and cruel bunch, although the US govt took a while to come around to that point of view themselves.

reliable estimates put it well south of those killed by terrorists, and we didn't target them to boot.
i would think we could agree on a scenario arrived by reductio ad absurdum (killing a few jewbabies to get hitler), and we stray somewhere between here & there.
i admit to that, but not to the exclusion of a morally justified/humanitarian reason. of course, this gets thorny when throwing the sudan in the mix.

So you suggest that killing some innocents to get at some 'bad guys' is OK? What is your acceptable ratio?

let me check.
nope, still have a penis (fwiw).
you?

Funny, seems that you advocated a position that is usually arrived at via moral relativism when you answered the previous point. If you're not a moral relativist, then what are you?

 

[$tinkle]

So would you agree that the term terrorist really has no meaning as it means a different thing to each country?

no, for the simple reason obl would be justified for his numerous acts of murder against civilians not found near any battlefield. it's this kind of thinking that lionizes thuggish icons like che guevara.

That the US harbours people who have committed acts such as car-bombings is documented and undeniable, but of course the CIA defends these people as freedom-fighters, or counter-terrorism operatives...

by this 'logic', you could extend this same damnation to a-10 pilots bombing a house full of insurgents, or one of your plainsclothes killing someone who they (mistakenly) believed to possibly be connected to terrorists. the only fault i find with that last sentence is the split infinitive.

Well, as the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden if the US could provide evidence of his involvement in terrorist acts then I would have to say that the justification wasn't really the one you put forward.

ah, i see: just deny the validity of facts or the manner in which they are presented, and they'll just go away. do you honestly believe this 'reasonable request' was never honored? you really have set yourself up to look rather foolish & desperate here.

The Taliban were (are) a repressive and cruel bunch, although the US govt took a while to come around to that point of view themselves.

if we ever thought otherwise, why do you think it is we chose them as qualified to execute our proxy war?

So you suggest that killing some innocents to get at some 'bad guys' is OK? What is your acceptable ratio?

case-by-case, naturally.

Funny, seems that you advocated a position that is usually arrived at via moral relativism when you answered the previous point. If you're not a moral relativist, then what are you?

sorry, which morals have i conveniently ignored? just because i would speed to get a dying relative to the hospital does make me a moral relativist. perhaps you mean moral subjectivist? that is: if you came upon a man & woman, and the woman slapped the man, he probably screwed up & she's taking him to task. the other way around, and you'd better take a pipe to his knees. i find this a useful example moral subjectivism.

a moral relativist would content it's always ok for members of group A to murder members of group B, but not vice-versa. ironically, the absolute term 'always ok' is a necessary, and sufficient, component.

another (extreme) example of moral relativism is to excuse members of a tribe who always sacrifice the first born female of the family. for this to be allowed would undermine the very concept of universal human rights.

or that blacks can't be racists...

 

[fluff]

no, for the simple reason obl would be justified for his numerous acts of murder against civilians not found near any battlefield. it's this kind of thinking that lionizes thuggish icons like che guevara.

Guevara a thuggish icon? I guess that is one way to look at him, yet it seems odd that one would choose to do so and yet justify carpet bombing as noble.

by this 'logic', you could extend this same damnation to a-10 pilots bombing a house full of insurgents, or one of your plainsclothes killing someone who they (mistakenly) believed to possibly be connected to terrorists. the only fault i find with that last sentence is the split infinitive.

Indeed, one wonders how it is possible to condone the killing of an unarmed, innocent man who did not resist arrest in any way. Of course every houseful of insurgents can be proven to be so because you say it is, no? Whereas every US servicemen in Iraq is a liberator rather than an occupier and the commander-in-chief cares about every hair on every head of each and every innocent Iraqi.

ah, i see: just deny the validity of facts or the manner in which they are presented, and they'll just go away. do you honestly believe this 'reasonable request' was never honored? you really have set yourself up to look rather foolish & desperate here.

Well, you will find that I'm in very good company should you ever choose to research the details, and threaten to bring down the house of cards that cossets you and your belief in the divine purpose of the USA.

if we ever thought otherwise, why do you think it is we chose them as qualified to execute our proxy war?

Ah.. so they're bad but better than the badder guys... They're also not exactly the guys you used, but then the CIA never really digs that deep does it?

case-by-case, naturally.
sorry, which morals have i conveniently ignored? just because i would speed to get a dying relative to the hospital does make me a moral relativist. perhaps you mean moral subjectivist? that is: if you came upon a man & woman, and the woman slapped the man, he probably screwed up & she's taking him to task. the other way around, and you'd better take a pipe to his knees. i find this a useful example moral subjectivism.

a moral relativist would content it's always ok for members of group A to murder members of group B, but not vice-versa. ironically, the absolute term 'always ok' is a necessary, and sufficient, component.

another (extreme) example of moral relativism is to excuse members of a tribe who always sacrifice the first born female of the family. for this to be allowed would undermine the very concept of universal human rights.

or that blacks can't be racists...

You avoided the question. Your contention that it's ok to kill innocent people to save more innocent people is an example of moral relativist logic. Why can you not justify it?

 

[$tinkle]

Guevara a thuggish icon? I guess that is one way to look at him, yet it seems odd that one would choose to do so and yet justify carpet bombing as noble.

yes, it would seem odd if one were to equate carpet bombing with nobility. since it's not me in this bitchfest, will you plz stop doing it?

Indeed, one wonders how it is possible to condone the killing of an unarmed, innocent man who did not resist arrest in any way.

i'm confused. i thought we were discussing the bungling of Jean Charles de Menezes resulting in death. if we still are, i find it difficult to say his death can be condoned, when all the while the metro police involved were charged, convicted, and fined for their gross negligence. i never condoned it, but i see the point you are making: that there is an application, a formula, a heuristic which allows for unintended, yet allowable, death of innocents. the only way to guarantee this never happens comes with another hefty price, since i don't believe those in hiding will abide by arrest warrants. the only absolute opinion i have about this is it should be on the table when regarding the use-of-force continuum.

Of course every houseful of insurgents can be proven to be so because you say it is, no?

intelligence analysis resulting in what can loosely be called a probability. try to stop being absurd.

You avoided the question. Your contention that it's ok to kill innocent people to save more innocent people is an example of moral relativist logic. Why can you not justify it?

it simply isn't the case. this is moral subjectivism. you asked for a ratio, and i answered that it's case-by-case. so i didn't avoid nor deflect the question. i did give a reasonable answer to a very fuzzy problem, in which area i have no expertise whatsoever.

the example i gave of speeding to the hospital in order to save a life (forgiving that speeding may increase the likelihood of death in an unlikely accident) is moral subjectivism, not moral relativism.

the example of speeding because i'm late for work, due to poor planning, is moral relativism.

essentially, wanting to reap the harvest while rationalizing the avoidance of necessary work is moral relativism.

 

[Silver]

essentially, wanting to reap the harvest while rationalizing the avoidance of necessary work is moral relativism.

Hey, you just described the entire Protestant faith there! By faith alone, indeed...

 

[$tinkle]

Hey, you just described the entire Protestant faith there! By faith alone, indeed...

???
if it's by faith alone, then it cannot be earned, and therefore there is no necessary work to be shirked.

your trap must be too cleverly laid for me.

 

[Silver]

???
if it's by faith alone, then it cannot be earned, and therefore there is no necessary work to be shirked.

your trap must be too cleverly laid for me.

Look at your quote through a Catholic's eyes...

 

[Secret Squirrel]

Look at your quote through a Catholic's eyes...

But boys bums only say "Yes.".....

So I'm confused....

 

[$tinkle]

Look at your quote through a Catholic's eyes...

i think we can both have a laugh there.

 

[sanjuro]

Found this in the Best of CL. The Berkeley Tree-Sitters are trying to prevent trees from being cut down so that UC Berkeley can build a sport complex:

Dear Berkeley tree-sitters,

Let me begin by stating that I like trees. Some of my best friends are trees and I generally support the peaceful coexistence of humans and trees. Similarly, I worry about carbon dioxide emissions and their impact on global climate. I also work on the UC Berkeley campus, and I often walk or ride along Piedmont Ave. on my way to or from work. Thus, I encounter your encampment on a near-daily basis. I see your slogans chalked on the sidewalks. I see your Tibetan prayer flags. I pass through clouds of your collective body odor and exhaled marijuana smoke. Having observed your actions for quite some time now, sometimes I wonder if you've ever considered just how much damage you're doing to legitimate pro-environment, pro-leftist movements everywhere.

Let us examine a few key points that may help you understand why your effort to save the oak grove manages to be futile, ridiculous, ignorant, destructive, and offensive all at the same time:

(1) Consider what you are fighting for.
How many trees does UC intend to destroy for its construction project? (Answer: 38). Is the coast live oak an endangered or threatened species? (Answer: No). Will the removal of these individual trees have any significant impact on the health of the overall population of the species? (Answer: No). Consider how many collective man-hours your campaign has devoted to saving these trees. Has it occurred to you that your time may be better spent focusing on (for example) the huge swaths of the Amazon that are cut down by loggers and developers every day? Are you choosing to protect 38 trees because you really think it is a significant, meaningful cause? I hope not--because that would be ignorant. It seems much more likely that you choose this battle because it is relatively convenient and riskless. Honestly--why don't you sac up and take on a *real* environmental offender?

(2) Consider your conduct.
Do you intend to win the hearts and minds of the people with catch-phrases like "Guantanamo Berkeley" chalked on the sidewalks? Do you really think you have anything in common with the prisoners currently incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay? Perhaps in a momentary flash of sobriety, one of you will realize just how offensive it is to draw a comparison between your fenced-in encampment and an actual prison.

(3) Consider the backlash of your actions.
You are the source and embodiment of all negative stereotypes that conservatives hold against liberals. If you're going to stage a protest, are you capable of doing it in a dignified, respectable manner? Hint: smoking drugs in the trees does not exude dignity. Also, consider periodic showers. Rather than winning popular support from pedestrians who encounter your encampment, you are actually contributing to their mistrust and ire toward environmentalists. Perhaps you are Republicans dressed up as hippies deliberately trying to damage public opinion of the left?

(4) Consider your hypocrisy.
Is that your 60's-era VW minibus parked next to the "Stop driving" message chalked on the sidewalk? Do you know what the gas-mileage on that thing is? (Answer: ~14-18 mpg) Have you considered investing in a catalytic converter? Perhaps you are also the same people who spray-paint "driving" on all the stop signs in Berkeley. Do you think your graffiti will trigger a massive, group epiphany in passing motorists and cause them to suddenly abandon the automobile as a mode of transportation? In reality, your graffiti (and your very presence) only detracts from the natural beauty of this campus and the surrounding town.

In summary, do not think for a moment that you exist under a shield of popular support. You are wasting your time on a futile, meaningless cause. If you're going continue living outdoors and imparting your naïve views on pedestrians, I suggest that you move your operation to People's Park (or perhaps the sidewalk of Shattuck Ave) where you can peacefully co-exist with the rest of Berkeley's hobos.

 

[ohio]

Found this in the Best of CL. The Berkeley Tree-Sitters are trying to prevent trees from being cut down so that UC Berkeley can build a sport complex:

Nice find. That pretty much captures it for me.

 

[$tinkle]

then there's some gold-star mom serving it to the city council:

and a code-pink collage:

the mystery remains: is it code pink on the inside? after viewing that, i ain't gonna find out.

 

[MikeD]

If a bunch of old women in pink scare you away from the recruiters', you're probably not cut out for that line of work anyhow.

When I think about Berkeley, I quote myself. I quote myself.

 

[$tinkle]

When I think about Berkeley, I quote myself. I quote myself.

take your writhing to the chez lounge