Originally Posted by Flash Bang Over
I used to think drugs were for the weak but now I realize the cruel irony is they are just to get by... This song comes to mind, I listen to it everyday... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqmRDV0a_70
I used to think drugs were for the weak but now I realize the cruel irony is they are just to get by... This song comes to mind, I listen to it everyday... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqmRDV0a_70
This is your weakest argument yet! You trace our timeline for women's equality from the adoption of the US Constitution but theirs from the formation of Islam? What a joke. You must be a hell of an engineer. I guess square pegs fit in round holes if you hammer them enough.
If it is that high for you why do you put up with it? Do you feel you have no choice? Are you doing it for someone? For your family? To achieve something before you die? Or are you simply doing it because you choose to, you just want to see how it plays out and since all you can do is try that is what you are doing? I'm just really curious...
If you've lost someone recently this may or may not help you I'm not sure... It made me cry and I'm not even religious. When he says 10,000 days in the fire is long enough he is referring to the amount of days his mom was paralyzed for roughly...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqmRDV0a_70
No, exact opposite. Exactly the type of mind that should not use drugs.
All I know is drugs do not expand your mind but they do help you cope. I feel like starting meth just to do it and see what happens, I will probably end up in a better situation than I am in right now. At least I can't end up in a worse situation, see I'm thinking positive
Last edited by ITZ DENI3D; 05-08-2012 at 07:59 AM.
This is the reason I deleted my original post. I dont want to detract from the mostly meaning and intelligent discussions with my generally ill thought out posts.
I know nothing about you, but you come across as very troubled. I hope you can find help/peace in life, but adding drugs to an already troubled life is recipe for disaster.
Probably the last i'll post on the matter.
We are all troubled. I'm sure you've heard, "we've all got problems" before. Posting ideas about dealing with them is great I think... To be fair the only drug I have used is Alcohol so maybe I'm wrong, but from what I've heard from different people is that drugs really don't help you expand your mind to much... I'm sure people probably think they do but I highly doubt it... Drugs can't do anymore harm than has been done so might as well give them a try right?
right, taking drugs in order to cope is a terrible idea. at first, it will probably work, later it might destroy your life even more.
i think responsible drug use presumes that it is done for the purpose of recreation, experience, and fun, not in order to enhance your ability in specific contexts or to combat your unhappiness and psychological problems. that is also why i am quite critical of prescription drugs. being dependent on a substance in order to live a normal life is a terrible thing.
depends on which people you listen to. the drugs that are typically said to expand your mind and even often make you a better person are psychedelics such as LSD, magic mushrooms, and DMT. i have read the most beautiful trip reports of people making grand realizations about society, themselves, and the meaning of life on these drugs. others have just relived childhood memories. others have experienced telepathy with fellow users. it's quite incredible.
many responsible drug users will probably argue that other drugs are not spiritual. i understand what they mean. stimulants and depressants enhance or inhibit your bodily functions respectively, they usually do not give you any experiences outside the usual way of perceiving the world. but i myself define any substance that alters the way you think and feel as spiritual. i find it quite interesting that human experience can also be an alcohol or cocaine experience, two ways of looking at life that are very different from the usual way.
Like you, I've also described this thought with the language of the finite and the infinite. I try to change up my descriptions to avoid routinized thinking. It also seems helpful to vary them because the words can capture different nuances which tease out different insights within the same concept. And as you mentioned, it may also help with teaching to say the same thing from a number of different angles.
It wasn't meant as a careful argument. But let's consider the point in more detail. Somewhere around ~1500 AD is when Europeans first came to the mainland USA. In terms of early settlers in numbers, the Pilgrims were one such group & were seeking to get away from the Church of England. Given this cultural genesis & the physical separation of 1000's of miles across an ocean, & given the hindsight knowledge we have now 500 years later that the USA is quite distinct in culture from Europe, I reasonably conclude this cultural separation was largely successful. So that moves the timeline to something more along the lines of ~400 years (1600 AD->present), 500 years if you go back to 1492. If you don't agree with this interpretation of the broad facts of the historical timeline, what do you propose as the cultural genesis for the USA? I find it's easy to criticize, harder to provide a more compelling factual basis for helping to refine historical interpretation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilgrim_(Plymouth_Colony)
You emphasized time in the posting I responded to. The same factors you mention affect everyone. The issue is understanding the "why", not the "what". Corruption destroys civilizations from within. It also self-propagates & impedes virtuous endeavors.
I agree but this attribute is also true of the USA culture & Christendom at large. In fact, one could easily argue it's even more non-uniform in the USA, yet somehow a uniform policy of gender-equality emerged. So this isn't a plausible explanation.
On the issue of gender-equality, Turkey is better than most Islamic countries, this is true. However, if you want to actually compare Turkey to the USA and/or Western European countries in a more sweeping sense, you'll need to be more specific & provide the data to establish the justification for the term "many ways". On the topic of religious diversity, Turkey is not even close to the USA. Whatever one's belief system is, this is a critical attribute for any society, arguably the most critical as it concerns the sanctity of personal & internal beliefs & one's freedom to practice them in practical safety (not legalistic safety). This religious diversity & practical safety does not exist in Turkey. I personally know 2 people who were murdered in their offices in front of their families within the last 2 years. The murderers were not charged despite being clearly identified.
I'm not sure of anything, right?
I understand your point. I felt Zefelius was doing a fine job of rebutting that train of thought, no need for me to address that angle so I took a different angle.
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
Last edited by Pedal2Metal; 05-08-2012 at 10:29 AM.
I did not mean to imply that it was that high for me personally at this moment. I have had severe times of difficulty in my life but I would never attempt to compare my pain with another as I believe that is a fool's errand. Rather my assessment was remarking on an overall scale of pain to pleasure in the world at-large. In my view, the pain I've endured is nothing compared to the joy that lies before me & that I get a taste of everyday, even in the midst of my pain which ironically are the most important & significant times of my life due to tasting bitter & sweet simultaneously.
While I think everyone's pain & joy is ultimately their own alone & can't be shared or empathized with fully, my reasons for enduring pain in my own life are due to the life of Jesus Christ & the joy He gives me now despite my pain & failure. I believe He is God, took the pain & shame of everyone's shortcomings, & lived the most noble human life of example possible as a result. This example requires that enduring pain while pursuing virtue in all its forms is a required discipline for any & all Christians. Yes, I'm well aware of the acute minority of that opinion from all angles, both personal & corporate, but it does not make it less true doctrinally from the standpoint of what Jesus Christ expects of Christians. This can not be done through physical or intellectual effort alone, it is an intrinsically spiritual endeavor empowered by Christ Himself & why Christ said one must be born again to have life in Christ. It is a distinct spiritual experience given by Jesus Christ.
Anyhow, that's my personal answer to your line of questioning.
thanks & best regards,
Pedal2Metal
of course, you can find distinctions between the US and all of europe. you can also find distinctions between rural life in texas and urban life in new england and between denmark and the ukraine. all these differences are a lot smaller than the difference between the US and indonesia or europe and japan. that's because europe and the US largely share a culture which is known as the "west". i doubt that i would feel foreign walking american streets while visiting a sub-saharan nation is something wholly different. we can talk about american-european differences all we want, e.g. the slightly greater emphasis on the individual in the US, but we're still very, very close compared to other regions of the world.
unless you believe that the american race stems from a super fast evolution of north american monkeys i would suggest that the united states is an european culture, influenced by various european ethnicities, perhaps especially english, irish, and german, but also the unique african-american culture. american culture has evolved from the european one and is still very similar. american culture started with european culture. then we had the enlightment together and now we are the masters of the economic system that now rules the world.If you don't agree with this interpretation of the broad facts of the historical timeline, what do you propose as the cultural genesis for the USA?
besides, you compare a single country with a religion even though you have many times claimed that the fundamentalism and culture in the muslim world stems from islam, not other cultural elements. so why do you not compare christianity with the islam? christianity started 600 years before the islam and it took american ancestors more than a thousand years to establish a nation which then gradually adopted rights for women. in terms of time, the islam can still develop such rights faster than christianity.
what i wished to express is that we cannot just expect the muslim world to change based on our parameters since we didn't. it cost us tremendous resources, one of which may has been time.You emphasized time in the posting I responded to. The same factors you mention affect everyone. The issue is understanding the "why", not the "what". Corruption destroys civilizations from within. It also self-propagates & impedes virtuous endeavors.
furthermore, the credit is due to those who actually turned the tide for women, not you and me who were simply born into the system and for whom gender equality is a matter of course. when gender inequality is institutionalized and seen as natural in your society it takes a lot of painful effort to change that as our own feminists, female and male, have shown. also, when you struggle economically it probably won't be your first priority to protest politically, especially when this means risking your life or your familiy's safety.
as we've covered before it seems to me that western values are more dominant in some regions in turkey and less in others. for example, it wouldn't surprise me if gender equality was greater in istanbul than it is in jerusalem, a city partially fundamentalist where homosexuals are lynched and women, in some areas, are publicly required to sit in the back of the bus unless they wish to be beaten or verbally abused.On the issue of gender-equality, Turkey is better than most Islamic countries, this is true. However, if you want to actually compare Turkey to the USA and/or Western European countries in a more sweeping sense, you'll need to be more specific & provide the data to establish the justification for the term "many ways". On the topic of religious diversity, Turkey is not even close to the USA. Whatever one's belief system is, this is a critical attribute for any society, arguably the most critical as it concerns the sanctity of personal & internal beliefs & one's freedom to practice them in practical safety (not legalistic safety). This religious diversity & practical safety does not exist in Turkey. I personally know 2 people who were murdered in their offices in front of their families within the last 2 years. The murderers were not charged despite being already identified.
similarly, indonesia is a relatively moderate muslim country. religious freedom is limited while religious equality seems somewhat secured. you must believe in some god. anyway, i suppose this is a lot more than you can expect from a majority of f*ucked up african christian countries which scare me no less than saudi arabia or pakistan.
Ok but philosophically, you're playing both sides of the street. With regards to your position on gender-equality, you assert that subtle differences have equal value as obvious differences yet on cultural differences here, you assert the opposite.
It's fair to assert that Islam has another 500 years before it reaches timeline parity.
That's fair & more appealingly stated imo.
Fair enough. We've already discussed that economics, while important, can not be demonstratively shown to cause terrorism.
What exactly do you mean by the terms "relatively moderate"? It seems to be to ring of the same tenor as someone remarking in an interview "Let me be totally honest...". In other words, it's a subtle form of compensation for something else that lurks in the shadows that counteracts/undermines the presented language.
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
I hadn't but looked it up & found this (among others). Sounds interesting.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../etc/view.html
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
i'm asserting that what may seem obvious to us, because we're familiar with certain customs, may seem subtle to others. i dispute the fact that some sexism is doubtlessly absolutely obvious or absolutely subtle. i do not at all dispute the fact that there are great cultural differences between areas and peoples of the world nor that there are great differences in sexism.
something which you and zef fail to see is that there can be fundamentally different conceptions of what sexism is which consequently results in different conceptions of what obvious sexism is. to say it provocatively, you are cultural totalitarianists. i don't say that entirely pejoratively because i think we should assert our own values. i just want you to see the other side, put yourself in the position of someone with a totally different mindset than your own, and stop inappropriately demanding behavior of other people based on what you deem good behavior.
however, until recently i found striking the fact that western values are more widespread in areas that do well economically, including human rights values and the like. china may pose a threat to that picture though.Fair enough. We've already discussed that economics, while important, can not be demonstratively shown to cause terrorism.
in regard to other nations i find it less fundamentalist, less brutal, less unfair. for example, in regard to many african nations, south-east asian nations where traditional asian cultures are dominant, and muslim nations such as saudi arabia, pakistan, or iraq.What exactly do you mean by the terms "relatively moderate"? It seems to be to ring of the same tenor as someone remarking in an interview "Let me be totally honest...". In other words, it's a subtle form of compensation for something else that lurks in the shadows that counteracts/undermines the presented language.
Nothing about the bible makes sense, there are contradictions all over the place which only leads me to believe that it was man made, which it was since people wrote it down. Anyone can say god talked to them and write it down. I'm not saying there isn't knowledge in religious texts, but some of the rules they implement are so hypocritical and illogical it is ridiculous... I've also noticed more people join religions as they get older which seems to makes sense... Anyways I have to find an internal reason to want to live, I think if people find external reasons they don't become better people and it makes them weak and dependent on that external factor. I have thought this way since I was 12 and I always will...
Poignantly said. John Stuart Mill, the great defender of happiness, put it this way: those who are capable of the greatest pleasures and happiness are typically susceptible to more pain than those who require less to be happy. It is in the nature of the highest pleasures, in other words, that they be bound up with an awareness of difficulty, hardship, pain, and so forth. A cat, by contrast to a human, requires less to live a life of pleasure, but that pleasure is lacking in the very awareness of finitude which would raise it to the level of what we humans are capable of accomplishing.
I was recently reading in Willliam Talbott's new book Which Rights Should Be Universal? that in many of these historical transformations people who had no personal investment in the various systems of oppression were quite influential in bringing about political and social change. In the U.S., for example, it was easier for people in the North to oppose slavery than people in the South who benefitted in some way from that institution. For those progressives who made a difference, then, it was a bit easier to push for change than we sometimes imagine.
i wish this article was in english. i doubt that anything like this is written in mainstream american media. it argues that all atomic powers, such as the US, israel, france or pakistan, are seen as legitimately defending themselves with their WMDs by using them as deterrence. only iran is made out to be the irrational madman who would use it for attacking. contrarily, iran behaves completely rational. even though you might detest the strategy of atomic weaponry, it behaves like any other state by trying to expand its power. all the propaganda about iran, the article claims, is a part of a plan to attack iran.
now, i am not so sure about that last sentence. so far it doesn't look that likely to me that the US would attack and that israel would do it without the US but otherwise i fully agree.
http://blog.zeit.de/ladurnerulrich/2...chen-vernunft/
The difference is they plan on using it thats why, where as developed nations were building them as a deterrent so no one used there nukes... Also there government isn't stable and terrorists could easily obtain them, I don't think that would work out so well. The risk reward ratio is so bad there really isn't even one. Risk: Terrorist obtain nukes and bomb cities killing millions. Reward: Iran has nukes so it feels important in the world... Don't really see the reward there...
the point is that they won't use it. the evidence we have are some assertions of iranian political and religious leaders. certainly, that has to be taken seriously but it's no use overstating something which could easily just be political populism. the iranian government would have to be insane bombing israel as the backlash would be a lot more terrible.
i don't think there's any argument for the claim that terrorists might obtain those nuclear weapons. why would they? obviously, WMDs will be heavily guarded, just like it is the case in other countries in possession of these. if your claim is based on islamophobia or simply a lack of trust of poorer nations look to pakistan or north korea.
there are many risks attacking iran. the economic and humanitarian costs would probably be gargantuan with perhaps little chance of success as many sources suggest. continue the economic isolation of iran. it's already making an impact.
You mean like Russia? Where half of their nukes are unaccounted for? If people think it is worth the risk thats fine, but when millions of people die that is on you people... To me it isn't worth risking millions of lives but thats just me...
that is not for sure but let's assume that it is. why do people get all worked up over 1 or 2 (possible) future iranian bombs then? doesn't russia have one of the largest arsenals of the world? we should be a lot more afraid of them. furthermore, other countries have WMDs too. before they complain about others perhaps they should get serious about disassembling their own weapons.
i think the reasons for going crazy over iran are geopolitical. the west doesn't want iran to have more influence in the region and parts of israel are probably honestly scared which is understandable. but the double standard of the west and israel is so large you can almost touch it. nobody gave a crap when israel without permission built its own much larger arsenal of nuclear weaponry. now iran, geopolitcally and defensively also understandably, wants to do exactly the same and it's a huge disaster. a number of declarations by iranian officials of seeking to annihilate israel should not be enough to justify a hugely expensive war, especially since many experts have recently come up to say that it's doubtful whether iran truly intends to build or is capable of building those weapons.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/intell...o-succeed.html
Figured you might like this Zef. I thought MQ & BQ was interesting.
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
the zeitgeist movement talks about this as well, especially about the fact that many jobs will become obsolete and there simply not being enough jobs for everyone, requiring a new system of resource allocation
i find the 3D printers quite remarkable as well (the zeitgeist movement also talks about these). at first i am mostly skeptical about such things because people seem to get really sensationalist about terrific sounding future technology but this one seems to be for real. it's quite incredible.
With the help of North Korea they can. The reason nobody cared that Israel built nukes was because they are the only ones over there able to defend themselves. When every single one of your neighbors wants to invade you what are you going to do? Basically they built it to say "O.K., if everyone wants to try to take us out thats fine, but if we go down you're all going down with us." I don't think Israel wants to take over Iran or other territories, the same can't be said for the other countries in that region wanting to take over Israel... Regardless, you feel it is worth the risk to give them nukes? That is completely insane. I guarantee you if they get them either they or a terrorist organization will use them. Then what will you say? Ohh we should have regulated it better or some other bull crap? I can't believe you would be willing put millions of lines on the line for your ideology... Yes we have nukes, but we have disassembled a lot of them. Also, notice how none of them were used? Eventually I think we will do away with them all together, but in the meantime giving nukes to some out of control 2nd world country is ludicrous.
many of israel's surrounding countries invaded israel for a multitude of reasons. i think that's rarely an appropriate response to injustice but i think it's a natural response. similarly, building a large arsenal of WMDs as israel has done isn't a good idea either but i suppose that is also the natural behavior of a state.
one basic issue down there is that the west and israel are suppressing the region economically, morally and indirectly militarily. israel doesn't need to invade those countries, it already profits from the enslavement of them and it does this by force in conjunction with western powers.
i said that the nuclear powers can't really legitimately complain about iran getting nukes, yes. you guaranteeing me something like that means nothing because it's an unfounded statement. where is the basis for such a claim? why haven't pakistani or north koran terrorists used nuclear bombs?Regardless, you feel it is worth the risk to give them nukes? That is completely insane. I guarantee you if they get them either they or a terrorist organization will use them. Then what will you say? Ohh we should have regulated it better or some other bull crap? I can't believe you would be willing put millions of lines on the line for your ideology... Yes we have nukes, but we have disassembled a lot of them. Also, notice how none of them were used? Eventually I think we will do away with them all together, but in the meantime giving nukes to some out of control 2nd world country is ludicrous.
imagine you were from iran. now, is it us who have to feel threatened or is it them? we have all the arsenal and israel uses its own to have control over the region. in terms of politics, it makes a lot of sense for iran to have nuclear weapons of their own.
according to you the only sane option is to intervene militarily. it seems as if most of the important officials disagree with you, some of whom are from israel such as the chief of its military. i don't think it will happen.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/2...uclear-weapon/
Fits right in with our earlier conversation. Nice find on your part...
I agree that success depends on a lot of factors. Although what the author suggests is seemingly provocative, by saying "intelligence is overrated," he adds caveats which actually translate his overall position into a common sense kind of view: "It doesn’t matter if you did not receive the best academic training from a top university. A person with less education who has fully developed their EQ, MQ, and BQ can be far more successful than a person with an impressive education who falls short in these other categories." Notice how the frst sentence is feisty. But the caveat which comes at the tail end of the second sentence simply reminds us that people who are intelligent but lacking significantly in other areas aren't going to do too well in life. The implication at that point reminds us that an impressive education is actually very important when other variables are held constant.
Do you think there is a greater chance that nuclear bombs will be used in the future if there is more proliferation? If so, then perhaps the nuclear club can justify its apparent hypocrisy on the basis of pure pragmatic concerns. So it would seem unfair, but perhaps pragmatically justified nevertheless.
There governments aren't nearly as unstable as the Iranian government is thats why, I don't think that the government itself would use it. But I don't think it would be to hard for a terrorist organization to obtain the bombs in that country, and if they did I don't think there is any doubt about what they would plan to do with them... In your article the Israel leaders said that they sounded "very rational" because they had “not yet decided to manufacture atomic weapons”. That doesn't prove anything about how rational they are. Ya they are saying they are rational because if they were stupid enough to get atomic weapons they know what would happen. I'm pretty sure that the Muslim nations around Israel started attacking them first and seeing how they are so highly out numbered they needed something to get them to back off, and the only thing that made them was Israel having nukes. Maybe its not fair, but thats to bad. Once Iran starts getting ganged up on by all of their neighboring countries then I think they should have nukes only as a deterrent, but until then they need to stop trying to obtain them or else they know what will happen, as stated in your article.
"Israeli officials have repeatedly warned that a nuclear Iran would pose an existential threat to the Jewish state, and have refused to rule out a pre-emptive strike to prevent it from happening."
That 'something' is and always will be the U.S.A. Who needs nuclear weapons when you have the biggest superpower in the world (nuclear weapons included) backing you up?something to get them to back off, and the only thing that made them was Israel having nukes
How is Iran having nukes a threat to anybody? If they use them, they get vaporized. They will never use them, they simply want the deterrence like everybody else. That is the whole idea behind nuclear doctrine.
The only real argument is that terrorists might get their hands on them. Which is moot because you can't back it up at all. As you say, there are russian nukes that are unaccounted for and I don't see anybody attacking russia. "Because they have a nuclear deterrent" you say? EXACTLY. That's the situation Iran wants to be in and I don't blame them.
Those nukes are owned privately or are on the black market now. You know how they lost control of those nukes? When there government collapsed. Where are there a bunch of revolutions going on at? Pretty sure they are all happening around the same area as Iran. So you honestly think there government is stable enough to own nukes and keep control of them? Like I said, let them do what they want, but when those bombs go off it is on all the stupid people who said it was a good idea for Iran to have nukes... Personally I couldn't consciously risk millions of lives just to make a country feel important but thats just me...
Last edited by ITZ DENI3D; 05-10-2012 at 05:51 AM.
that question is hard to answer. perhaps. what will happen if iran gets nuclear weapons is that the power ratio will be shifted further to their side which is why western powers and israel have a problem with it. i would surely find it unfortunate if iran chose to really make those bombs.
i think there is a reasonable pragmatic argument about safety for the iranian standpoint. they are are powerless in the region with israel and the US present and if they overstep their boundaries they will get reactions. that is a clear power relationship in which israel has it all. the status quo of iranians and many other people down there is already unacceptable as israel and the west are also sucking up all resources. of course, nuclear weapons for themselves would give them a leg to stand on.
you are arguing from a western point of view.
in more idealistic terms, the real danger stems from all actual nuclear powers. let them get rid of their own WMDs and their demands wouldn't seem to hypocritical anymore.
so we're back at the starting point. the point of the german link i initially posted was that the image constructed by the media of iran as irrational and crazy is propaganda. the evidence we have for that view is some iranian officials stating that they wish to annihilate israel. the contrary evidence is that iran is behaving completely rational, just like any other state.
you've said that before but you still haven't presented any evidence.But I don't think it would be to hard for a terrorist organization to obtain the bombs in that country, and if they did I don't think there is any doubt about what they would plan to do with them...
it doesn't prove it but what evidence is there to the contrary? western media saying iran is irrational. anyway, if you actually look at iranian behavior it seems quite rational.In your article the Israel leaders said that they sounded "very rational" because they had “not yet decided to manufacture atomic weapons”. That doesn't prove anything about how rational they are.
well, jews immigrated to palestine and expelled palestinians from their land. i think in terms of politics countries have invaded others for much worse reasons, especially when traditionalist religion is a variable.I'm pretty sure that the Muslim nations around Israel started attacking them first and seeing how they are so highly out numbered they needed something to get them to back off, and the only thing that made them was Israel having nukes.
i'm sure that's one reason why israel tries to be the most powerful force in the region, partially by having WMDs, but that doesn't make their standpoint more valid than the surrounding muslim nations' which is mostly, i think, a demand for more justice, a demand for a fair treatment of palestinians, and probably all amplified by a huge inferiority complex.
how would you feel if chinese people immigrated in mass numbers to southern california, then at some point established the country of "little china" there, expelled most americans, and by superior force defended that region against all attempts to take it back? you'd probably feel much like one of those muslims.
military force is not the only variable. iran has not been attacked. those people are f*cked because of western and israeli predominance. but they can't do anything about it because these powers are upholding that dominance by military and economic force. if they try to do something they'll be confronted with immediate action. for example, when they're trying to have some WMDs of their own in order to balance powers a bit they risk war against those vastly superior forces.Once Iran starts getting ganged up on by all of their neighboring countries then I think they should have nukes only as a deterrent, but until then they need to stop trying to obtain them or else they know what will happen, as stated in your article.
iran would not only feel more powerful, they would become more powerful.
have you also considered the risks of intervening militarily? it would be extremely expensive. the chances of success would be limited. human costs would probably be rather great.
would you yourself go down there, risk your health and life for such an unsure cause?
Actually if you look back that land originally belonged to Israelites, the Muslims took it from them. So when they got an ally, (the U.S.) and a powerful one at that, they were able to take back the land that was originally theirs... So the equivalent would be Native Americans taking a chunk out of California and calling it theirs with the support of China. I wouldn't have a problem with that at all, technically it is all of theirs... The surrounding nations want one thing, Israel, and they are willing to do anything to take it I assure you. Just because I don't have theoretical proof that they will use a nuke when they get one, doesn't mean my assumption is false. Just basing it off of the way they have handled situations in the past, and how easily they are controlled by dictators... If we hadn't removed Saddam Hussein you would still be saying Iran should have nukes which is pretty funny.
ha! You always get me on that one!It may be true, but then again all I did was ask you a question and then put forth a possibility with some caveats. I don't know how much more cautious, fair-minded, or unbiased I could have been.
I'm still reading that Talbott scholar, btw. It's interesting how we have been discussing rights and cultural relativism in this thread at the exact time as I'm reading him on the same issues. He contends that the cultural imperialism argument is incoherent. It's the argument, as you know, which objects to one culture (especially with the Western powers) assuming its values are the only valid ones compared to the mistaken ones of other cultures. One conclusion of this argument is extreme moral relativism. Ultimately, it becomes objectionable to criticize the norms of any other social group. But Talbott responds that this is an incoherent view since it undercuts the earlier insight that Western powers have been wrongfully imperialistic in their historical oppression of various races, tribes, and colonies: "So the argument undermines the very insight that motivated it. If you believe the cultural imperialism of the Western European colonizers really was wrong, you should not be an extreme cultural relativist" (WRSBU, 42).
In response you could probably say, as a cultural relativist, that there is no right or wrong and thus you don't believe that cultural imperialism is wrong either. But it seems that once you judge any society in somewhat moral terms, you will then have the basis for doing so in reference to other societies---lest you undermine evaluative judgement altogether.
simple utilitarian argument
if it is unfortunate - and if there is lets say a certain chance of a negitive outcome as a result (eg a nuclear war) that causes loss of life, what is the net expected loss of life due to iran getting nukes. And if we can determine this to be - maybe 10,000 lives or 1,000,000 lives how much effort should we put into stopping it?
Im also not sure about your "reasonable pragmatic argument". In theory israel is powerful and iran is less powerful in the region, or more precisely the elite in israel are powerful and the elite in Iran are slightly less powerful on an international scale... but it isnt reasonable and pragmatic to try to remedy that with nukes except as a way of proping up the iranian elite vis vs the iranian people.
Iran doesnt need to deter an invasion or some sort of fire bombing of its cities by israel, worst case israel sends a missile to hit a nuclear plant, annoying indeed but still like an isolated terrorist event and nuking Israel's capital would be a insane over reaction and result in the loss of all of irans major cities. Otherwise having a nuke isn't worth having even fairly moderate deterant, probably not even worth the cost of the actual nuclear project itself.
It doesnt seem to me like a elite who whould get a nuke for iran in the current environment would be the same sort of person that would get rid of it on the basis of avoiding hypocricy. I suspect your very expectation that they care that much about hipocrisy is pretty western centric.in more idealistic terms, the real danger stems from all actual nuclear powers. let them get rid of their own WMDs and their demands wouldn't seem to hypocritical anymore.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote