Future Important Thread (Maybe)

[ShowtekGER]

I agree: The fact that she's a Western journalist has nothing to do with it for me. That just happened to be one example among many from which we can draw. What does it have to do with pro-democracy movements? Nothing objective, but personally I'm just not excited about spreading freedom to more and more people. That was an argument I made last month, and I was merely reaffirming it with this one example of why I generally don't like people. But the example doesn't even have to be on par with mass rape. In my own country, I know lots of people who aren't rapists, I hope at least, and yet I don't like over 95% of them. They have freedom, and they completely squander it on status-driven, commodified banality. They live in fear of what others think of them, and thus they live rather trite, commercialized, shallow lives. If others gain this same freedom, I would not be at all surprised if they turned out likewise: humanity, imo, tends to be either monstrous or repressed to the point of blind, unthinking stupidity.

Again, this is merely my personal opinion. Others may have a natural love for the greater part of mankind, but I will typically favor cats and worms to humans.

first of all, how is a people oppressed by a dictator better than a "free" people that might develop materialistic and other kinds of superficiality? secondly, if you only wanted to prove your pessimistic view of humanity here why of all very good cases did you choose this one? here's an example of the results of the usage of chemical weapons in the iran-iraq war (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Haupx...eature=related) and here's the story of a jewish guy being gruesomly tortured to death by muslims in france calling his parents in the process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilan_Halimi). there's a video of an iranian woman being shot at demonstrations against the unjustly elected mahmoud ahmadinejad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlehNLfk90c). one only has to take a look at the world state of hunger and poverty which is a way greater crime by magnitude than all the other ones mentioned here. this stuff happens every day all the time but you chose a gang rape that accidentally took place on tahrir square.

Perhaps you missed my initial posts, but I started with the claim that I could defend racism on some level. So your observation that I have a negative view of all this "superficiality" isn't quite right. Quite the opposite: I agree with you that it's an inevitable feature of human life. My argument is that people who claim they're better than racists probably aren't. Does this mean I find racism intolerable? Not exactly. It just means I see two types of phenomena on a similar level: judging others because of their somewhat culturally defined ethnicity and judging others based on other types of culturally defined values. The latter includes, for example, not giving someone a job because of what they wear, or consolidating one's ties with a group that drives nice cars, wines and dines at expensive restuarants, has proper table etiquette, etc. So my point contests the idea that the latter group is somehow better than the former. By making that point, I am thereby defending some definitions of racism (I can't cover all my bases as everyone has a different definition) as being just as acceptable as our everyday cultural habits: no better, no worse. But most of us typically think, especially in "multi-cultural" America, that we're just fantastic people compared to those ignorant, naughty racists and sexists! Are we?

that's an interesting point. perhaps after at least partially and officially abolishing gene based racism this kind of discrimination is the next for humanity to handle.
yea, actually quite inspiring to look at this form of class division as the equivalent to racism. it is as though people would look for ideas that make them better than others by any means. i guess one counter-argument would be that this kind of division is earned instead of inherited which in a narrow sense probably isn't untrue in many of the cases. still, i mostly find those cases important that are related to real discrimination, not just pre-judging or whatever you want to call it.

[Zefelius]

first of all, how is a people oppressed by a dictator better than a "free" people that might develop materialistic and other kinds of superficiality?

Fair point. I'm sure it's not better from their perspective. Hence, I've been couching my observation on this issue in personal terms. I think all I've said, a few times over the past month, is that personally I don't get excited for these movements. While the majority of people I know, as well as people I don't know who expressed their opinions in the media, seemed to get excited and energized by the prospect of spreading freedom, I was in the minority of people who felt pretty indifferent about it. So I'm not saying those oppressed people have a better life than I do in my privileged corner of the world, I'm just putting forth that if someone wants me to be politically active and passionately concerned about what's going on to some dumb ass strangers half way across the world, I just don't think it's going to happen.

[Zefelius]

secondly, if you only wanted to prove your pessimistic view of humanity here why of all very good cases did you choose this one? here's an example of the results of the usage of chemical weapons in the iran-iraq war (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Haupx...eature=related) and here's the story of a jewish guy being gruesomly tortured to death by muslims in france calling his parents in the process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilan_Halimi). there's a video of an iranian woman being shot at demonstrations against the unjustly elected mahmoud ahmadinejad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlehNLfk90c). one only has to take a look at the world state of hunger and poverty which is a way greater crime by magnitude than all the other ones mentioned here. this stuff happens every day all the time but you chose a gang rape that accidentally took place on tahrir square.

It's good to see you passionately critiquing my ideas, as you used to say that you thought I was passive. I take it as a compliment that you now find so much in my thinking to be open to criticism.

I don't think I'd look too deeply into why I chose the example I did. I happened to read the NYTimes article that day and so I chose it as a decent example. It also resonated for me because it linked back to my earlier comments last month about why I wasn't excited about the pro-democracy movement in Egypt. If I had chosen any of your examples, they would not have fit so well with my past observations, except in a merely logical way. My example had the benefit not only of providing further evidence for my view, but also being directly related to the very mass phenomena about which I had expressed my opinions last month. Nothing deeper than that.

[Zefelius]

If I may, sometimes you professor types are just a wee bit insulated from the real world.

That's true! Although, to be fair to others in my profession, most of them are reasonable individuals, unlike myself. Most professors in the humanities would absolutely side with you. No doubt about it. While being in the minority doesn't make me wrong, I understand that it requires more justification and evidence than most common sense opinions, and I would hope that others wouldn't accept my values or ideas without great reservation.

[Zefelius]

Now, on topic, if you do your research on climate change scandals, you will clearly find out it's not been scandal-free. At the end of the day, it's inevitable that such a momentous issue (both if it's true AND/OR if it's false) with such large-reaching consequences as climate change will become politicized. In such a climate it can be difficult to separate fact from fiction, especially with long-term phenomenon as climate change which requires many millenia of data, not merely a century, to properly interpret the long-term trend. This is difficult. I believe this why the glacial ice data cores are important, etc.... I've done some research into the topic but not sufficient to be as declarative as you are, knowing that political forces would love to just "push it through".

I don't doubt that politics can and does interfere with scientific research. And there are scandals in every field, especially those with ethical and political ramifications. But at some point, non-experts have nobody better to rely upon than the general consensus of experts. If there is no consensus, that's another matter of course. That seems reasonable, right??

[ScottieX]

That's true! Although, to be fair to others in my profession, most of them are reasonable individuals, unlike myself. Most professors in the humanities would absolutely side with you. No doubt about it. While being in the minority doesn't make me wrong, I understand that it requires more justification and evidence than most common sense opinions, and I would hope that others wouldn't accept my values or ideas without great reservation.

Sometimes i think the philosophers/academics are right and the general public is too close to the issue sometiems the philosophers/academics are too far removed from it.

[ShowtekGER]

It's good to see you passionately critiquing my ideas, as you used to say that you thought I was passive. I take it as a compliment that you now find so much in my thinking to be open to criticism.

what i mean when i say you're passive is that you're so nice of a person that you never offend anybody as opposed to, e.g., pedal, thrasher or me who constantly provoke their counterparts, consciously and unconsciously. instead you always stay rational and never seem to get provoked yourself. in addition, you frequently acknowledge everybody else's opinions as valuable (e.g., thrasher's last comment which i myself found quite stupid frankly) despite your hatred of humankind. i find that quite admirable and that is a real compliment. it just sometimes has the drawback that one doesn't always express one's opinion in the face of other opinions. at least it seems to be a little drawback to me.

i thought you were discrediting the freedom movements because the freedom fighters also happened to gang rape somebody which would be a very ignorant conclusion IMO. perhaps you did that anyway to some extent, otherwise i still don't see the connection between the two events. i.e., why would you mention them in the same breath? they don't seem related to me other than that they were carried out by the same people.

But at some point, non-experts have nobody better to rely upon than the general consensus of experts.

i very strongly agree with this.

[Zefelius]

i very strongly agree with this.

I remember you saying something similar about the holocaust. As non-experts, we can only be expected to have so much knowledge on any particular subject. If we had to thoroughly research every conspiracy claim apropos of the holocaust, 9/11, Obama's birth records, Pearl Harbor, UFOs and Elvis, we'd have no time left to be any good in our own fields!!

[ShowtekGER]

this world is ☺☺☺☺ed up. we have created a system based on hundreds of millions of people living miserable lives in order to satisfy the ill, unnaturally inserted demands of the few. basically, everybody builds crap at the cost of happiness and their very lives for people who think they need said crap and thus use it for short-lived relief of the social prison we call consumerism. wow, thank you capitalism!

sometimes i still can't believe it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...ted-inhumanely

[ShowtekGER]

I remember you saying something similar about the holocaust. As non-experts, we can only be expected to have so much knowledge on any particular subject. If we had to thoroughly research every conspiracy claim apropos of the holocaust, 9/11, Obama's birth records, Pearl Harbor, UFOs and Elvis, we'd have no time left to be any good in our own fields!!

i agree. you just can't have enough knowledge in every field in order to claim "to know" what's going on. nonetheless, i sometimes caught myself in the act of defending "obvious facts" based on what i knew was the scientific consensus. quite embarrassing actually! but i guess that's humane. everybody seems to do that, or worse: they actually think they know something because they have read a bit about it. the internet is full of such arguments.

[Zefelius]

Well, that only took 10 years! Ha!

Better late than never though...

[elthrasher]

Well, that only took 10 years! Ha!

It took actually going after him. There's plenty of evidence that Bush let him slip away, probably in order to keep the boogeyman out there (or maybe because of family connections).

[Zefelius]

It took actually going after him. There's plenty of evidence that Bush let him slip away, probably in order to keep the boogeyman out there (or maybe because of family connections).

You could be right... I don't know. I shouldn't be so political or biased, but I'll admit that I enjoy the fact that Obama will get much of the credit. He gets attacked for such dumb things, it's good to see a victory of any sort right about now.

[ScottieX]

You could be right... I don't know. I shouldn't be so political or biased, but I'll admit that I enjoy the fact that Obama will get much of the credit. He gets attacked for such dumb things, it's good to see a victory of any sort right about now.

I felt a bit funny about people celebrating killing someone... Killing someone is a lesser of two evils sort of thing, not somthing for dancing in the streets.

Also, I saw it as a reminder of everything that is wrong with how the US approached the war on terrorism - i.e. making one guy a hero and letting him, in his own crazy way, control US policy. So I now wonder if the US will do it exactly the same if there is a next time.

Still... that doesnt mean I wouldn't have shot him myself.

[Zefelius]

I felt a bit funny about people celebrating killing someone... Killing someone is a lesser of two evils sort of thing, not somthing for dancing in the streets.

Also, I saw it as a reminder of everything that is wrong with how the US approached the war on terrorism - i.e. making one guy a hero and letting him, in his own crazy way, control US policy. So I now wonder if the US will do it exactly the same if there is a next time.

Still... that doesnt mean I wouldn't have shot him myself.

I know what you mean. I feel weird about it too. I think that's just the conflicted, strange nature of what it means to live and be a part of this absurd universe.

I agree it's strange watching Americans on the street dancing and chanting. I'm not like that personally. I've always been too distant from others to get so swept up in nationalism or patriotism. And yet I can identify with them. I can understand the human need for identifying with a group and wanting that group to be victorious, even if it means death to an enemy. It's not ideal or perfect, but I can understand it.

BTW, I've also seen footage of Americans at Ground Zero, and they're not all dancing--but many of them are solemn. So we have a spectrum of diverse reactions over here in the States.

[Zefelius]

i agree. you just can't have enough knowledge in every field in order to claim "to know" what's going on. nonetheless, i sometimes caught myself in the act of defending "obvious facts" based on what i knew was the scientific consensus. quite embarrassing actually! but i guess that's humane. everybody seems to do that, or worse: they actually think they know something because they have read a bit about it. the internet is full of such arguments.

I wonder if we'll see the same thing with bin Laden's death. I bet anything there will be sceptics. He's already been buried at sea, so I wouldn't be surprised if some ask questions about whether we really got him. The other question that might be raised is that even if we did get him, did we really bury him at sea---or do they still have his body?

[ShowtekGER]

BIN LADEN HAS BEEN KILLED OH MYYYY GOOOD !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111 AL-QAIDA IS DOWN

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhnUgAaea4M

[ShowtekGER]

I wonder if we'll see the same thing with bin Laden's death. I bet anything there will be sceptics. He's already been buried at sea, so I wouldn't be surprised if some ask questions about whether we really got him. The other question that might be raised is that even if we did get him, did we really bury him at sea---or do they still have his body?

there are already now skeptics. and there probably always will be. the US military took DNA samples and the like and i don't immediately see a reason for why they should fake bin laden's death right now so i just trust it.

what's more important to me is how significant this event is other than that it might temporarily demoralize al-qaida and other islamic terrorists.

[elthrasher]

You could be right... I don't know. I shouldn't be so political or biased, but I'll admit that I enjoy the fact that Obama will get much of the credit. He gets attacked for such dumb things, it's good to see a victory of any sort right about now.

Obama deserves credit. He made taking down bin Laden a priority. Yes, the soldiers do the hard work and deserve credit as well, but the CIC makes the decisions. Without that, there's no mission.

I felt a bit funny about people celebrating killing someone... Killing someone is a lesser of two evils sort of thing, not somthing for dancing in the streets.

I oppose the death penalty (mostly on economic and fairness grounds) but I don't feel conflicted here. bin Laden could have surrendered. He could have become a dentist or an acrobat instead of a terrorist. He brought it on himself and got what he deserved.

[ScottieX]

I oppose the death penalty (mostly on economic and fairness grounds) but I don't feel conflicted here. bin Laden could have surrendered. He could have become a dentist or an acrobat instead of a terrorist. He brought it on himself and got what he deserved.

I'm not thinking about bin ladin's rights or being sorry for him or wishing the CIA had done anything different. And I'm not entirely opposed ot the death penalty myself, but I (and I believe most others) would find it grossly inappropriate for people to be having a party at the execusion of a prisoner... Or for me to be having a party if I kill an intruder in my house.

The reaction I would prefer, or that i think reflects better on the people, would be the solem one.

[elthrasher]

I'm not thinking about bin ladin's rights or being sorry for him or wishing the CIA had done anything different. And I'm not entirely opposed ot the death penalty myself, but I (and I believe most others) would find it grossly inappropriate for people to be having a party at the execusion of a prisoner... Or for me to be having a party if I kill an intruder in my house.

The reality of the situation is that OBL probably wasn't coming in alive, only dead. I think we are mostly happy and relieved that he has been defeated and can plot terror no more. I think we would have celebrated just as much if he'd been captured. If his death is the only way it ends, then that's what we'll celebrate.

I certainly hope an intruder in your home never kills 3000 of your friends and family members. Assuming he doesn't, it's not even the same ballpark.

Having a party over the execution of a killer, even one who has killed 3000 people, isn't the same either if that killer is already incarcerated.

[ScottieX]

I think we would have celebrated just as much if he'd been captured. If his death is the only way it ends, then that's what we'll celebrate.

well i can see that I suppose might have mpore thoughts later on that

I certainly hope an intruder in your home never kills 3000 of your friends and family members. Assuming he doesn't, it's not even the same ballpark.

Having a party over the execution of a killer, even one who has killed 3000 people, isn't the same either if that killer is already incarcerated.

That is such a republican hawk sort of misdirection. Ironic since I'd be far more of a hawk than you I imagine.

Anyway - you aren't making the appropriate comparison. My point isnt about him or how many people he killed - he is dead, that chapter is over. It is about the people doing and celebrating the killing.

[elthrasher]

It is about the people doing and celebrating the killing.

To which I pose these questions: Are they celebrating his death or his defeat? Which is more important? Are they divisible? Is it wrong to celebrate OBL's defeat?

[Pedal2Metal]

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article.../osama_bin_who

This FP article provides the evidence which is more concerning looking forward: blatant deception & lying by foreign Islamic governments who are supposed to be allied in helping to stamp out terror. Clearly Pakistani leaders as well as people who were aware of Osama's presence in Pakistan felt the West is the greater enemy, taking no action to eliminate/capture Osama & thereby tacitly condoning Al Queda & Osama. This sends a larger message to other Islamic nations & people as well. So it sets a bad precedent & now that it has been completely unmasked for the lie that it was, we need to re-assess our foreign policy positions with Islamic nations who are supposed to be allied against terrorism. Clearly what has been done up to now isn't working, not even remotely.

I'm quite relieved that Osama was killed although I would have strongly preferred capture, I can understand that given he wouldn't surrender, you take the shot as you may never get this opportunity again. The message is clear: relentless pursuit until the goal is achieved. That's a great message to future terrorists. It is a war, after all, not a friendly game of chess. We can't afford to be wavering on this issue. If someone breaks into my house & kills members of my family, you can be ---- sure I'll be relieved when I have a shot to kill them & do so successfully. How much more when it's 3000 people in the worst terror incident to date on American soil. I don't celebrate when someone is killed but justice must be satisfied imo. So I shed no tear for Osama, Hitler, or all the rest. I feel differently about the 3000 that lost their lives in 9/11. That does bring tears to my eyes when I recall the images of people choosing to jump to their deaths rather than endure being burned alive.

If you want to talk about inappropriate celebration, I'll refer to the celebration by Palestinians & other Middle Eastern people when 9/11 first occurred 10 years ago. The news media initially put up those videos showing the crowds rejoicing in the streets & then abruptly took them down within 24 hours because they were so inflammatory. I wish they had just showed the data as it happened. Of course, that would require believing in objectivity & the value of raw data & allowing people to draw their own conclusions but that will never happen on the real issues as media manipulation is so much easier. There are all sorts of divisive issues that would immediately change course in public policy if people just saw the raw data of the issue in action vs. filtered versions. Then we wouldn't be so deceived, as the FP article clearly demonstrates, in our foreign policy or our national consciousness.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[Pedal2Metal]

To which I pose these questions: Are they celebrating his death or his defeat? Which is more important? Are they divisible? Is it wrong to celebrate OBL's defeat?

I'll provide the answers in order:

his defeat.
his defeat.
Possibly. His capture would have been defeat as well & actually preferred but given his unwillingness to surrender, death was the correct response by the SEAL team.
No. He deserved death. I am glad he is gone. I'm perfectly comfortable with giving people some time to revel in this victory. It's been 10 years in the making & 3000+ people (let's not forget his other terrorist plans/acts) died to make it happen. That's worthy of some time for celebration & reflection rather than simply saying "that chapter is over" as if we should immediately move on. Good grief, give me a break Scottie. Maybe in a few weeks/months time, sure, but right now, let people enjoy the relief it brings. Where were your objections when Saddam Hussein was executed publicly & his execution broadcast over the Internet? Are the Iraqi people too barbaric in nature to have the same expectations of behavior & voiced your same concerns? That's not even a double-standard, it's no standard! Regardless, no images have been broadcast of Osama's body or the process of his death/shooting so people aren't glorying in the process of his death but in the fact that he has been defeated. That is a good thing imo.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[ShowtekGER]

Clearly Pakistani leaders as well as people who were aware of Osama's presence in Pakistan felt the West is the greater enemy, taking no action to eliminate/capture Osama & thereby tacitly condoning Al Queda & Osama.

after acknowledging that some proportion of pakistanis and other middle eastern groups might feel that the west is a greater threat than bin laden's presence (and there can't be any doubt about it) you should ask yourself why they feel that way in my opinion.

justice must be satisfied imo

what is justice to you? when someone commits a crime he has to be punished?

That does bring tears to my eyes when I recall the images of people choosing to jump to their deaths rather than endure being burned alive.

people die because of outrageous reasons and in gruesome, unjust ways every day. does that bring tears to your eyes or are they reserved for american lives when these are taken like this once in a decade?

If you want to talk about inappropriate celebration, I'll refer to the celebration by Palestinians & other Middle Eastern people when 9/11 first occurred 10 years ago.

of course, you wouldn't justify your actions based on someone else's, would you? that seems to be your logic. i don't really morally care if people celebrated the death of bin laden as opposed to the celebrating of many middle eastern people in the face of the terrible deaths of 3000 people which i found quite disturbing. but, again, you have to ask yourself why they would act like this. morally condemning these people brings us NO further.

[Pedal2Metal]

after acknowledging that some proportion of pakistanis and other middle eastern groups might feel that the west is a greater threat than bin laden's presence (and there can't be any doubt about it) you should ask yourself why they feel that way in my opinion..

I'm ok with that. Both can be true simultaneously.

what is justice to you? when someone commits a crime he has to be punished?

Yes. Repentance & reformation is good & preferred but it doesn't mean there aren't consequences which can not be altered. This is an interesting conflict of principles that my wife & I disagree on when it comes to capital punishment, of which this is an instance imo (shooting Osama). In this case, it's immaterial as Osama was neither repentant nor reformed. He deserved life imprisonment and/or death. He got death by his own choice. that's more than the people he killed.

people die because of outrageous reasons and in gruesome, unjust ways every day. does that bring tears to your eyes or are they reserved for american lives when these are taken like this once in a decade?

I find your tone dismissive, offensive, & presumptive. The answer is yes, it brings me great sadness.

I am likely much more aware of detailed acts of violence around the world due to my personal activities & financial obligations than you realize. You're a student right? So you have little money to actually travel to Romania, Costa Rica, India, Africa, etc... right? If you had the money, would you even spend it this way? Do you think that reading an article puts you in the same category as actually visiting people in their real situations? Trust me, it doesn't even come close. Did you know that conservatives are more charitable than liberals? Yes, it's true. In any case, I just don't go around talking about it usually. 9/11 was a significant highly visible event. It seemed appropriate to talk about. But if you want to swap stories to see who can puff out our chest more, leave me out of it. I'm not interested in playing your game of elitist liberal thought patterns with no basis in actual real sacrifice, merely paying lip service to the skim of the truth, not the reality of it. I know myself. I put my money & time & my treasure (my family) where my mouth is. Just keep arguing amongst your friends in your student lounges about who is the better person while others of us actually visit these people directly & try to help them. Clearly, we couldn't measure up to your high standards of charity & morality anyhow so what's the point in arguing? what mindless dribble...

of course, you wouldn't justify your actions based on someone else's, would you? that seems to be your logic.

No. As I stated there has been no pictures publicized of Osama's body nor the process of his death (this alone is indicative that people are trying to consider things carefully, a positive imo). As a result, people are not rejoicing over the process of his death or glorifying the images of it. They are rejoicing over his defeat. This is measurably distinctive from the rejoicing of the images of 9/11 (both process & death). So again, you demonstrate your bias & inability to break things down to their distinctive components.

i don't really morally care if people celebrated the death of bin laden as opposed to the celebrating of many middle eastern people in the face of the terrible deaths of 3000 people which i found quite disturbing. but, again, you have to ask yourself why they would act like this. morally condemning these people brings us NO further.

I don't disagree. Discussion is good but it doesn't invalidate the moral superiority of defeating a known terrorist leader who literally wanted militant Islam to take over the world & was willing to kill people to achieve that end. So I can morally condemn him (& all those like him) w/o invalidating my willingness to continue to discover more understanding. Apparently, you don't possess that ability. So be it, your loss.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[Zefelius]

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article.../osama_bin_who

This FP article provides the evidence which is more concerning looking forward: blatant deception & lying by foreign Islamic governments who are supposed to be allied in helping to stamp out terror.

I wasn't as impressed with the article. Isn't FP quite prestigious? This article, however, struck me as being a loosely organized pastiche of quotes and observations. Some of those observations were highly suggestive, but not conclusive. Many of them seem interrelated, yet the writer didn't state exactly and logically how one piece of evidence or observation supported another. Even the constant need to click new web pages aesthetically facilitated this appearance of substantive fragmentation.

With all that being said, however, there are some serious questions raised by the fact that this large, conspicuous compound could have been overlooked when it was located so close to a major military academy as well as just 40 miles away from Islamabad. FP is right, along with others, to raise these questions, but for the time being I think we're still at the speculative stage.

[Zefelius]

people die because of outrageous reasons and in gruesome, unjust ways every day. does that bring tears to your eyes or are they reserved for american lives when these are taken like this once in a decade?

I agree with your point logically, but I agree with Pedal in terms of realism. This is one more reason why I (and I think Pedal to some extent) have argued recently that humans have a natural tendency to form groups and develop "superficial" and emotional ties with those groups. There's no logical reason to favor some individuals over others, but it's simply too idealistic (as Freud argued famously in Civilization and Its Discontents) to identify with and love humanity equally across the board. Hence most individuals feel the most pain when family and friends are attacked, less pain when they lose colleagues, neighbors, and acqaintances, even less pain when fellow countrymen are assaulted, mild irritation when others suffer in foreign lands, and sometimes even take pleasure in the consumption of other species. This spectrum will vary from person to person, but to not understand why the spectrum exists in the first place is to fail in our attempts to fully comprehend the human condition. It means that our analysis needs further development.

[Pedal2Metal]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...dens-location/

This article is kind of weak imo. BTW, Zef, I agree the FP article isn't as strong as they typically are but it does raise an important question as you noted. Back to this article.

I think the issue this article raises is the question of: Is torture acceptable under some circumstances? My older son wrote a paper on this (he's in debate & quite good actually, unlike his father...) & did quite a bit of research on the topic. In this instance, it appears the controversial interrogation techniques led to the revelation of the name of Osama's trusted courier which eventually led to identifying the compound where Osama was discovered & killed.

I'm certain the usual suspects will denounce all forms of torture, etc... but after I read my son's paper & his sources, I had to admit, it's not nearly as black & white as we love to imagine it. I know I consider torture the lesser of 2 evils if it stops a WMD deployment, etc.... but I find it quite distasteful personally & believe that to do so does imply an irreversible loss of one's soul (or a nation's identity) if you will. Such is life which is full of tough decisions. There is no free lunch, ever. If one chooses passivity, you must also accept the reality of doing nothing meaning injustice will go unresponded to on your watch. If one chooses a more pro-active response, you must also accept the certainty of getting it wrong sometimes & committing the very injustice you are trying to prevent. It's a no-win situation either way as human judgement is fallible by definition & confirmed every instant of every day for all of human history both collectively & individually. That's life imo & one fundamental illustration of why I don't accept utopian fantasies as achievable by men.

Life is tough & that will never ever change, no matter what man achieves.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[Pedal2Metal]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...647391240.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42853221..._central_asia/

Just an interesting article on the raid & the build-up to it. I see a movie in the making (I think Hurt Locker team in the works based on snippets I've seen). I love this cat & mouse stuff. Makes me feel right at home with 3 teenagers all sneaking about trying to do things they think I don't know about. Ahh, the joys of parenthood... that's a form of government right?

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[Pedal2Metal]

FP is right, along with others, to raise these questions, but for the time being I think we're still at the speculative stage.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/05/02/pakistan.bin.laden/

Some more color on the topic. I think you're right at this point.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[ScottieX]

"I don't celebrate when someone is killed but justice must be satisfied imo."

This is actually the attitude I'm looking for.

I just fear that when you mix celebration with people dying you go down a bad path. I mean a bad path in terms of what you might call your own 'humanity' and your countries 'humanity'. I also dont expect to stop people from celebrating (or want to waste time trying to enforce that) but I think it is good to have at least mixed feelings. I imagine myself in the context of having to defend my home with deadly force being somewhat angry in the sense of "look what you made me do!"

[ShowtekGER]

I'm ok with that. Both can be true simultaneously.

what do you mean by "both"? step one was acknowledging, step two is investigating. we rarely investigate.

Yes. Repentance & reformation is good & preferred but it doesn't mean there aren't consequences which can not be altered. This is an interesting conflict of principles that my wife & I disagree on when it comes to capital punishment, of which this is an instance imo (shooting Osama). In this case, it's immaterial as Osama was neither repentant nor reformed. He deserved life imprisonment and/or death. He got death by his own choice. that's more than the people he killed.

i don't really know the word "repentance" so i looked it up on wikipedia which says that it's "a change of thought to correct a wrong and gain forgiveness from a person who is wronged". do you really think that punishment in many contexts is an effective way to gain this repentance and reformation?

and what does it mean that someone "deserves" death? isn't that the most morally subjective statement of all to make? should someone only be morally measured by his actions? i'd find it plausible to suggest that bin laden thought he was doing great deeds and that he acted in accordance with god's will or something like that. how can you, then, possibly say that he was a bad person or deserved to die? i bet that he felt that it was actually him and his people that were unjustly attacked and that the west is the main culprit. i'm sure many in the middle east believe so. and they have lots of reasons for it.

If you had the money, would you even spend it this way?

yes. of course, this is a dubious question because if i wanted to i could travel a lot more at the expense of other joys in my life or, more radically, i could stop studying and travel immediately. but if i simply had a lot more money right now, i'd definitely travel more.

Do you think that reading an article puts you in the same category as actually visiting people in their real situations?

no. i see theoretical and practical knowledge, also in this regard, as two sides of the same coin. it is one of my greatest desires to fill my somewhat rich theoretical knowledge with practical knowledge in the future. it's very common for my age group in europe to do so and i regret that i haven't done it more yet.

Did you know that conservatives are more charitable than liberals? Yes, it's true.

did you know that religious people aren't more helpful than atheists and agnostics except for people of their own religion? yes, it's true. however, out of context.

i guess, american conservatives value charity differently than american liberals. haven't the latter always favored legislation over charity while the former did the opposite? i don't necessarily identify with american political liberalism, but in this point i agree with it. i doubt that voluntary human charity will ever be high enough to satisfy the needs of the poor. if it was, there wouldn't be so many extremely poor people in, e.g., america alone or in the whole world. in addition, there's something very degrading about pitifulness. i'd rather have a just allocation of resources from the start up. i am always skeptical of charity.

No. As I stated there has been no pictures publicized of Osama's body nor the process of his death (this alone is indicative that people are trying to consider things carefully, a positive imo). As a result, people are not rejoicing over the process of his death or glorifying the images of it. They are rejoicing over his defeat. This is measurably distinctive from the rejoicing of the images of 9/11 (both process & death). So again, you demonstrate your bias & inability to break things down to their distinctive components.

lol. it's funny how you always see the morally positive in action's of the representatives of your country.

otherwise, i strongly disagree with this. why would the common celebrating americans only celebrate bin laden's defeat, not the death itself? because they haven't seen a picture of the dead body? ridiculous. americans never experience feelings of revenge?

regardless of this, why, then, do you refer to celebrating middle eastern people when talking about celebrating americans?

Discussion is good but it doesn't invalidate the moral superiority of defeating a known terrorist leader who literally wanted militant Islam to take over the world & was willing to kill people to achieve that end.

really? was that his agenda? i have recently read that it was to free muslim states of pro-western, oppressive regimes, such as that of mubarak or the tunisian guy and replace these regimes with muslim caliphates. i read that here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...g-2278028.html

and even if he really wanted to take over the world, destroy the west or whatever, we, again, have to ask ourselves why such thoughts exist in the middle east if we want to counter them.

[ShowtekGER]

I agree with your point logically, but I agree with Pedal in terms of realism. This is one more reason why I (and I think Pedal to some extent) have argued recently that humans have a natural tendency to form groups and develop "superficial" and emotional ties with those groups. There's no logical reason to favor some individuals over others, but it's simply too idealistic (as Freud argued famously in Civilization and Its Discontents) to identify with and love humanity equally across the board. Hence most individuals feel the most pain when family and friends are attacked, less pain when they lose colleagues, neighbors, and acqaintances, even less pain when fellow countrymen are assaulted, mild irritation when others suffer in foreign lands, and sometimes even take pleasure in the consumption of other species. This spectrum will vary from person to person, but to not understand why the spectrum exists in the first place is to fail in our attempts to fully comprehend the human condition. It means that our analysis needs further development.

i basically agree that this is approximately how human empathy is currently dealt out but i disagree that this tendency is natural. i don't sympathize more with someone from southern germany than with someone from nepal. quite to the contrary, i might easily sympathize a lot more with freedom fighter in tibet than with people in denmark who live boring lives with a nine to five office job. furthermore, my logic is internalized into my emotions. i really strongly believe that "all men are created equal" as opposed to many people. i really don't see a reason to regret the deaths of 1000 danes more than 1000 ghanaian or japanese people. which is why i hate when news reporters say "there have been terrorist attacks or natural disasters over there. some danish (in denmark) or german (in germany) nationals might have also been killed but we're not sure yet." that's also why i hate that all the west goes absolutely crazy about 3000 western people dying in a terrorist attack when terrorist attacks occur every day in other places of the world, when western atrocities in the middle east kill thousands of people every year, when our lifestyle is responsible for the cruel deaths of millions in a year, and so on. e.g., as a response to 9/11 where 3000 civilians died, approximately 100000 civilians died in the iraq war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War). one has to face this absurdity ONCE and must immediately realize this incredible double standard.

enough ranting. you already now my opinion so back to the topic. if people were actually actively exposed to these numbers, they would think differently. furthermore, if i personally already now think differently, then others do too and many more can too. this is simply my personal counter-proof to "natural". and even if it were natural, it wouldn't be a moral justification. if this tendency was in fact natural, humanity would be immoral by nature measured by its own definitions.

and don't confound this with the shock value i might experience when someone in my neighborhood dies or my view of my own safety is unsettled in some other way. of course, if a suicide bomber blows up a building in århus this might have a major impact on me because it would violate my expectations. i think this is exactly what happened to americans after 9/11. they thought they were invulnerable. this assumption was violated.

[ShowtekGER]

☺☺☺☺, this must be the twentieth time that these discussions keep me up at night. i have to be at the university in 4 hours. LOL.

[Zefelius]

i basically agree that this is approximately how human empathy is currently dealt out but i disagree that this tendency is natural. i don't sympathize more with someone from southern germany than with someone from nepal. quite to the contrary, i might easily sympathize a lot more with freedom fighter in tibet than with people in denmark who live boring lives with a nine to five office job. furthermore, my logic is internalized into my emotions. i really strongly believe that "all men are created equal" as opposed to many people. i really don't see a reason to regret the deaths of 1000 danes more than 1000 ghanaian or japanese people. which is why i hate when news reporters say "there have been terrorist attacks or natural disasters over there. some danish (in denmark) or german (in germany) nationals might have also been killed but we're not sure yet." that's also why i hate that all the west goes absolutely crazy about 3000 western people dying in a terrorist attack when terrorist attacks occur every day in other places of the world, when western atrocities in the middle east kill thousands of people every year, when our lifestyle is responsible for the cruel deaths of millions in a year, and so on. e.g., as a response to 9/11 where 3000 civilians died, approximately 100000 civilians died in the iraq war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War). one has to face this absurdity ONCE and must immediately realize this incredible double standard.

I see your point, and it's a strong one. I know plenty of people, and I should probably include myself, who live in a self-referential bubble. We often forget that people suffer every single day, in a thousand different ways, but only become significantly concerned when it affects people like ourselves. We act as if the life of a European, American, Jew, or Australian counts more than the lives of Russians, Mexicans, Africans, and many others. Maybe it's not always so explicit, but it's a kind of subconscious cultural phenomenon. I can see where you're coming from...

[Zefelius]

It's always enjoyable reading Scottie's provocative and thoughtful comments, so I'm glad to hear he's doing okay. I was worried when I heard the news out of New Zealand, but it sounds like he's safe.

[ScottieX]

yeah a tornado. it was close - but not close enough to hurt us.

[elthrasher]

as a response to 9/11 where 3000 civilians died, approximately 100000 civilians died in the iraq war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War). one has to face this absurdity ONCE and must immediately realize this incredible double standard.

Only an idiot or a neocon wouldn't say that the Iraq war was a horrific response to 9/11. The fact that we F'd up so badly in the wake of that tragedy doesn't undercut the reality that bin Laden's defeat is worth celebrating. In many ways it is cathartic to finally see our soldiers go after the actual bad guy and actually take him down. This is the mission we should have undertaken 10 years ago. Finally getting it right allows us to hope that we've turned a new page in adventurism and that maybe we won't have another stupid war in which 100,000 civilians are killed for basically no reason. That too would be an outcome worth celebrating, but only because of the ridiculously low bar that has been set for American foreign policy.

When someone close to home is murdered in an act of terror, it is more shocking because it could have been us. We should be protected. It shouldn't happen here. Etc. That doesn't mean the value of human life has something to do with proximity. Americans have always donated generously to disaster victims around the world. We have demonstrated to stop Rwandan genocide. And many of us looked on in shame as the Iraq war dragged on and the bodies piled up.