Friday, April 13, 2007

Imus and the Perfect Storm

Things weren’t looking good for the hate-America-always crowd. The fake charges against three rich, white men – the three forces of evil according to the powers in the Democratic Party -- at Duke University were rapidly falling apart.

This was both devastating and confusing to the movement. What they’d hoped would be the perfect storm of American evil was exposing their efforts as the evil itself. Bigoted misogynists, rendered safe by both their wealth and location in the hateful South, brutally and cynically savaged an innocent, young black student who, for no other reason than the fact that she had the bad luck to be born black in America, had to dance for her white “owners.”

That was the story they hoped to sell and, given that, with their control of the media they’d been able to sell it – or something like it – repeatedly in the past, they had little reason to doubt their coming success.

All the pieces were rapidly put into place. No need for evidence or deliberation, the universities professors would – en masse – write a letter demanding the guilty men be punished immediately. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would pack up their carpetbags, hold their news conferences and, well, with just a little help from the press, Sharpton could parley this fake rape the way he parleyed another into personal riches and “honor” some twenty years ago.

Even the setting could not be more perfect as the fact that these horrors were committed in the South would render moot all that talk about progress in race relations. America was a bigoted, evil, horrible place where, as Joe Biden pronounced on the floor of the United States Senate “racism lurks in every dark shadow.”

The fact that the children came from successful families made it even that much more delicious for it “proved” another of the Democratic Party’s leader’s claims of “two Americas” where if one was rich one was free of concern, with the system working always on their behalf, but the poor, well, they had no options. John Edwards’ (yes, the multi-gazilionaire John Edwards’) campaign slogan of “two Americas” was proving true.

The South was perfect, in fact, for it provided the hate-America-always crowd with a win-win scenario where conviction proved that America is evil, hateful, racists, misogynist and all of the other claims of the special interest groups and the politicians they own in the Democratic Party while exoneration would even further prove it as, clearly, the “good ole boy” network still sees rich, white boys to go unpunished for their “crimes.”

Only this wasn’t the 1980’s. The leftists’ monopoly in the media had been shattered by Fox News, center-right talk radio and the blogesphere that allowed the people to get past the gatekeepers in their New York City studios. The “perfect storm” was turning into a perfect disaster.

The letters written by the college professors demanding the “lynching” of three innocent white men – a conceit they felt needed no fact or evidence behind it because, as “college professors” they were superior in all ways to the common folk – proved not only their lack of expertise (not to mention decency and honor) but worked to prove what others had long been saying about the true agenda of the leftists at America’s universities.

Meanwhile, other claims of the hate-America-always crowd began to unravel one-by-one as well. Far from being a poor victim of evil America where a black woman has no hope, the lying stripper was enrolled in a taxpayer-supported university where an education was in the offing, a position likely achieved through nothing other than an affirmative action program that saw some better qualified white student denied admission to make up for some supposed past sin.

And, while the woman on whom the hate-America-always crowd had gambled so much was wasting the opportunities provided to her by the America they sought to attack, the evil “rich, white boys” were not resting on their (or their parents’ laurels) but rather making the most of every opportunity their good fortune had afforded them.

Clearly outstanding students to be admitted to Duke University in the first place, in addition to maintaining their grades at such a competitive and once-great university, they pushed themselves physically to become amongst the world’s best athletes at a demanding and difficult sport.

It didn’t help the hate-America-always crowd that their spokesmen were the twin conmen Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, proving that the race card had been played so many times the hate-America-always folks were down to their last two jokers.

Even the win-win situation the leftists thought they’d created by holding this farce in the South proved to be disastrous for the hate-America-always folks. What the hate-America-always crowd thought for sure would “prove” that no progress had been made since the days of Jim Crowe only served to prove that justice was equally disserved by blatantly racist attacks against innocent whites and that clearly the leftists had taken their campaign against America too far.

If anymore proof were needed of the hate-America-always crowd’s real intentions, take note that at Rosie O’Donnell’s “The View,” they continue to attack the victims of the leftists’ efforts, by slandering the Duke players.

Enter Don Imus.

As I said, things weren’t looking good for the hate-America-always crowd. What they’d counted on to be the perfect storm to prove all of their allegation against America turned into a disaster. They needed some rich, white guy and quick!

And Imus is a dead man. Why? Not because of what he said – please, the hate-America-always crowd chose the vicious, vile, misogynistic “It’s Hard Out Here For A Pimp” as the best song of 2006. Besides, don’t the lefties always tell us that entertainers have no effect on the people and that’s why it’s okay to sell hateful and vulgar records to children?

No, Imus is a dead man because truth plays no part in the agenda of the hate-America-always crowd – and the fact that Imus is one of them will not save him either. Having exposed themselves and their agenda so clearly and disastrously in the South, they are going to have to turn Imus’ stupid words into the new Holocaust just to try and regain some of the ground they lost.

599 comments:

1 – 200 of 599   Newer›   Newest»
Pam said...

I read a comment on another blog that echoed your sentiments: Imus provided a convenient target to those who were upset that those evil white Duke boys were going to get off "scott free." While I am not prone to believing conspiracy theories, it does seem a bit convenient, seeing as Imus has been offending plenty of people for many years and no one has said "boo" until now.

Regardless of the timing, the Imus gaffe was just another rung on the ladder for $harpton and Jack$on to climb on their way to riches and self-proclaimed leadership/sainthood.

Christian/Citizen said...

Another great read, Mr. Sayet. Please, keep it up and keep 'em coming! I believe I see signs that the end is near for the backwards thinking leftists, and your efforts are helping.

bigwhitehat said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bigwhitehat said...

I can't believe that those young ladies have converted themselves into victims.

Where is there pride? Where is there sence of self respect? Why did they not all say, "Who the hell is Don Imus? I have never heard of the man."

Thick skin comes with self respect. A strong spirit is not moved by lies.

Anonymous said...

Most interesting theory. Scary times! Boortz said this morning that they didn't mind sacrificing one of their own just to prove that the race hustling works, so they can proceed with shutting down conservatives.

Just found you via LGF's video of your Heritage speech. We desparately need more of you. How about coming to Atlanta? Appearances on cable TV? Talk Radio? PLEASE!!!

Also, if you have any effective ways to communicate with liberal Jews, please advise. If you had a chance to give a 5-minute D'var Torah during a summer Shabbat morning service, what points would you choose to concentrate on?

Me said...

Here's a starter for Sayet and communicating with liberal Jews: it helps your credibility to refrain from throwing around the word "Holocaust." Comparing Don Imus with "the Holocaust," and/or accusing others of equating the two, demeans the concept of a Holocaust and what it actually was. It shows you don't take the Holocaust very seriously, that maybe you think it was equivalent to Imus' racist and sexist remarks.

Farmer John said...

Having exposed themselves and their agenda so clearly and disastrously in the South, they are going to have to turn Imus’ stupid words into the new Holocaust just to try and regain some of the ground they lost.

How demeaning a usage of the word "Holocaust."

Get over yourself, me. The language police are going out of business, and people can finally say what on's their minds again. If you're offended....tough. Plug your ears. Close your eyes. That's what you tell me to do whenever me and my kids are on the street and the "Gay Pride" float, drifts by.

MoleOnABull said...

Good post Mr. Sayet!

hmmm, "me" seems to be hangin around a lot... one of those moonbats that just can't go away from websites like these. just doesn't know how to handle being faced with the truth...

tip to FJ: don't feed the trolls

well, maybe just a little bit... i like to watch them make fools out of themselves :-)

Anonymous said...

It is funny that me mentions the adulteration of the Holocaust, when it is the Left that does this all the time. The Left mocks the Holocaust, they mock Nazi's, and they mock racism. This incident with Imus is another example of the Left making a mockery of racism. The Left calls George Bush a Nazi, Hitler, a terrorist, and a tyrant, making a mockery of all of these things. Dick Durbin compared our troops to Nazi's, completely distorting what actual Nazism is and was. Charles Rangel said that the Iraq war is worse than the death of six million Jews in the Holocaust, totally devaluing the lives of the Jews that were killed. Noam Chomskey said that policies of Hamas and Hezbollah are more conducive to peace than those if Israel. PETA compared the Holocaust to the death of chickens. The Left has made it a past time to distort good and evil. They mock the Holocuast everytime they call a conservative a Nazi. It is truly sick beyond the imagination.

Farmer John said...

moleonabull,

That's a good lesson for the first two billy goats...but I'm their bigger brother.

Me said...

Anonymous, if you don't see the difference between real, historical comparison and just throwing around words idiotically, I don't know if you can be helped. I don't answer for "The Left," but there is a legitimate way to make the historical comparison, with facts. You can say, "The nazis did ________, and Someone is doing the same thing." It's still no basis to call someone a Nazi, but it's more legit than just throwing around words. People both on the left and the right do it. Tom Delay just compared the Left with "scoundrels like Hitler."

However, none of this is a defense for Sayet's stupid usage of the word "Holocaust." He's just throwing it around, and that is disrespectful.

which brings me to my other point, FArmer John. I'm not saying he shouldn't be allowed to say it. he has freedom of speech, be my guest. But I can also voice my opinion of his speech. I have freedom of speech just like Sayet. And the Gay Pride parade? They have the right to peacable aseembly just like you. Have your anti-gay pride parade, no one can stop you, constitutionally. When I tell you to stop embarassing yourself, I mean that as a helpful suggestion. You are, of course, free to continue embarassing yourself as much as you want, for everyone's entertainment.

Farmer John said...

What make you think I'd hold an anti-gay parade, me? Why would I wish to imitate a bunch a tasteless fools who show their "pride" by humping one another likes dogs in the street? That would be embarassing.

You've some curious ideas as to what should be considered "embarassing" and "shameful". But then, no surprise there.

Me said...

Oh, no no. I think an anti-gay-pride parade would feature the opposite of gay pride, not imitation of it. Btw, do you care about lesbians too? Because they don't "hump each other like dogs," in the sense that you're meaning it, as far as i know.

Anyway, I'm not sure why you're so obsessed with gay people. I'm getting the feeling that maybe you're a little too loud in your anti-gay protestations. You've heard of Ted Haggard, right?

Or perhaps, the lack of humping in your life is the source of the problem.

Farmer John said...

You're the self-proclaimed expert. You tell me.

And she-gays don't hump like dogs? I guess they must sit around sipping camomille tea and reading Sappho's poetry instead.

But then, not being a hedonist like yourself who calls pleasure the highest of goods, I'm of a mind to agree with Protarchus in Plato "Philebus"

PROTARCHUS: But when we see some one indulging in pleasures, perhaps in the greatest of pleasures, the ridiculous or disgraceful nature of the action makes us ashamed; and so we put them out of sight, and consign them to darkness, under the idea that they ought not to meet the eye of day.

Me said...

So you're basically saying that your relationship with your own sexuality and sexuality in general is overshadowed by shame? that's not very healthy. I think i'm beginning to understand why you, apparently just for the fun of it, remain abstinent and count the days between your nocturnal emissions, and why you are so obsessed with gay people. You're kinda creepy, to be honest.

Farmer John said...

So you're a doctor now? Where did you go to Med School?

And if having sex in public and being proud of displaying your genitals is so healthy, then why is it against the law? Just curious.

And don't blame me, I'm just a poor schmuck who has to follow the Law, not some Jewish-Russian Immigrant law student with delusions of becoming America's arbiter of fine taste and moral conduct.

Farmer John said...

...and if you enjoy sex, then get married and enjoy it to your hearts content. That way you won't become an epidemiological risk factor for STD transmission to the rest of society.

Me said...

Um, i've never been to a gay pride parade where people have sex in public. So i don't know what you're talking about.

In general though, "it's against the law, so it must be bad" isn't a very good argument. Helping slaves escape used to be against the law, marrying outside of one's race used to be against the law.

I really don't know what "some Jewish-Russian Immigrant law student" has to do with anything. I have no delusions, my friend. I just like my freedoms here in this country. You have delusions of being some sort of arbiter of what is moral as much as anyone else.

As for getting married to prevent spread of STD's, i don't think that's logically connected. You can be monogonous without being married, or you can be not monogomous even if you are married. And surely you've heard of adultery and divorce. Adultery is not against the law, and neither is getting married and divorced as many times as you want. in the time that I've been with my boyfriend, for example, Britney Spears has gotten married and divorced twice.

Farmer John said...

1) I guess you've never been to San Francisco then.

2) You're right. It's not a very good argument. But then I've got a back-up touchstone. What's yours?

3) This isn't the only place you post, me. You like to make lots of claims... law student... Russian extraction... lived in Russia under communism... Jewish. I guess I should simply ignore all such statements in the future. Like most of your arguments, perhaps they're merely baseless claims.

4) And I'm sure you're right, institutionaized monogamy probably does nothing to prevent the spread of STDs. For all we know nobody really takes the institutions that sponsor them (Church/State) seriously anymore.

5) I hate to tell you this but in most states adultery is still against the law. Perhaps you should consider a change in you professional aspirations, me. The law is something you seem to only have a passing familiarity with. Are you a law school freshman? Or are you still pre-law?

Farmer John said...

Silly me... ignore those personal questions about your law-student status in #5 above.

Christian/citizen said...

"Me", you're not clever. He (we) don't approve of gay-ness simply because it is wrong (btw, gay/lesbian=same thing). To accept it would be a mistake and would damage the fabric and stability of American society.
For your future reference, here's an incomplete list of other things that are detrimental to America: not expecting personal responsibility (abortion, affirmative action, excessive welfare), no stomach to defend our lifestyle with war if necessary, taxes used for wealth redistribution, and (last but not least) policies that favor warm and fuzzy feelings over cold facts.
We inherited the strongest society/country and some of us (not you) can recognize what made us strong in the first place.

I (we) will not hand it over to those (people like you) who have it so good (because of people like me/us) that they have nothing more important to do than to ponder ways that the country could be better, and then assume (!!! HUGE assumption coming !!! ---> ) that making these changes won't tear down what has been established.

Me said...

I'm almost 2/3 done with law school. Adultery may technically be against the law in many states, but just like laws not allowing people to drive with unharnessed bears in their trucks, these laws are never enforced. Furthermore, "The enforceability of criminal sanctions for adultery is questionable in light of Supreme Court decisions since 1965 relating to privacy and sexual intimacy, and particularly in light of Lawrence v. Texas, which protected the right of privacy for consenting adults."

Me said...

"The issue is not hypothetical: According to a Washington Post essay by George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, as of last September, the criminal codes of 24 states still prohibited adultery, and zealous prosecutors still invoke these provisions from time to time."
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/08/18/dorf.adultery/index.html

So that's not actaully a majority of states, but a bare minority.

Christian/citizen said...

"Me", first, all the stuff I said above. Next, it's liberals like you, self-impressed by your own intellect and (mis)education, that assume that you know best how to improve on our society (a society that was already the greatest before you were a sparkle in your father's eye) that are recklessly and wrongly using our society for your well-intentioned, yet still wrong, social experiments, while ignoring those cold facts (truths) you despise.

Me said...

christian/citizen -- what are these "cold hard facts(truths)" that we liftists ignore? I'm just curious.

Anonymous said...

What hell are you talking about me? I never said anything about a gay pride parade. I simply pointed that absolute fact that many liberals think George Bush is Hitler, which really means that liberals do not understand evil. Liberals call the United States military Nazi's, which is sick. The Left is truly the enemy within. Not only did PETA compare chickens to Jews, but the also compared the lynchings of blacks to the death of chickens. It is the Left that undermines the true horror of the Holocaust.

Lastly, you do not even understand what Sayet was saying. He was not comparing the Imus incident to the Holocaust. He was pointing out that the Left, like they often do, has turned this into a Holocaust like situation. They are acting as if slavery never ended. Every time the Left uses the term Nazi, Hitler, or Holocaust they do disservice to Jews and humanity as a whole. People that lead the anti-war movement, like Cindy Sheehan, think bin Laden is a freedom fighter and George Bush is a terrorist. The Left is so delusional it is scary.

Anonymous said...

"if you don't see the difference between real, historical comparison and just throwing around words idiotically, I don't know if you can be helped."

I guess you were talking to Farmer John about the gay pride parade, but again, you act as if there incidents that George Bush, the administration, and our military that could accurately be compared to the Holocaust, which is simply untrue, and if anyone believes this they need to get their head checked. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, comparable. If you believe a proper analogy can be made between the United States today, and Nazi German, I suggest physchological help.

Me said...

Anonymous, as I already said:

(1) I don't answer for PETA. Neither does Charles Rangel. "The Left" is not one large mass that acts as one. I don't support PETA. But I am on the left.

(2) Both sides make ridiculous comparisons. Like i just mentioned, Tom Delay has published a book in which he says that, and i quote, "liberals have finally joined the ranks of scoundrels like Hitler." Dinesh D'Souza says all sorts of ridiculous things about liberals. So does Ann Coulter.

You write that the left does not understand evil, but can you explain to me why Tom Delay would call Hitler a "scoundrel"? A scoundrel is defined as a "rascal," a "disreputable person." It seems to me that Delay is having some trouble understanding the magnitude of Hitler's evil if he calls him a "scoundrel."

(4) In the case of this post, it was not the left, but Sayet who used the term "Holocaust."

(5) Finally, "If you believe a proper analogy can be made between the United States today, and Nazi German, I suggest physchological help." Well, let's see.

(a) a democratically-elected leader tries to increase his power as much as possible

(b) the country wages a war of aggression on another country, and hopes to expand this war it its neighbors.

(c) domestically, dissent is attempted to be silenced with the blugeon of nationalism and patriotism. Any dissenter is labeled a traitor, as not supporting the troops, or the president "in a time of war."

(d) people of a particular religious group are being demonized and blamed for the world's problems.

(d) further, values like Kinder, Küche, Kirche are promoted especially for women. Women should not be controlling their bodies -- they need to be reproducing, taking care of children. Affirmative action, which helps women succeed outside of the kitchen, is under assault (was just ended in Michigan via a fraudulent ballot initiative, for example). And church is promoted for everyone -- religious values like abstinence until marriage are advanced in government institutions, prayer in school is being advocated once again, creationism is being pushed into the public school curriculum.

Yeah, no parallels at all. I'm not saying that we are now living in Nazi Germany, or that we are even inexorably headed there, since it seems most voters have decided that it's time to turn away from the edge, but there are some striking parallels, for sure.

Anonymous said...

"Yeah, no parallels at all..."

I knew it. You are an apologist for the far Left. You dare to make an analogy between the President of the United States and Hitler! Get help before it's too late.

"Both sides make ridiculous comparisons."

This just shows your inability to draw distinctions, which is exactly Sayet's point. Those on the Left are not capable of making discriminations, which is key to rational thought. It is hilarious how you spend your time denying what Sayet says about those on the Left, while at the same time arguing the very thing he says you would argue. There is absolutely no comparison between the hate filled accusations of the Left and those on the right. It was Joy Behar of the View that called Donald Rumsfield "Hitler like". She also called our administration "liars and murderers". Spike Lee called Trent Lott a "card carrying member of the Ku Klux Klan" and later agreed with Luis Farrakhan that during Hurricane Katrina the levies were blown up to kill black people. It was these same people that argued that President Bush did not act, because, as Kenya West put it, "George Bush doesn't care about black people".

Tom Delay is not excused for doing what the Left does all the time, but his point is well noticed. The Democrats love to create scandals where none exist. The Democrats wanted to destroy Alberto Gonzalez for doing his job. The President has the authority, under the United States Constitution, to fire his political appointees at any time for any reason. Instead, the Democrats went ahead and made a mockery of the law. They make scandals out of thin air, just like they did with the Vallery Plame incident. It is sickening.

Me said...

Anonymous, I think you have some serious reasoning issues.

You write -- "This just shows your inability to draw distinctions, which is exactly Sayet's point. Those on the Left are not capable of making discriminations, which is key to rational thought." You know what is key to rational thought? Logically sound arguments based on evidence, not Syaet's strawmen, or baseless generalizations.

You provide a lot of examples of what people on the left say, yet nothing to compare them with of what people on the right say, so there's really no basis on which to compare the two sides. To "make discriminations" you need things to compare. Like, when you test a drug, you have some control groups and some placebos, and other tests that allow to isolate the drug's effects and analyze them. You can't just give the drug to 20 people and assume that whatever happened to them is because of the drug. But that is exactly what you're trying to do here -- you provide nothing to compare the leftists' comments with. To that end, shall I quote you some Imus, some Limbaugh, some Coulter, just so we can compare who makes the more outrageous statements?

"The President has the authority, under the United States Constitution, to fire his political appointees at any time for any reason." -- would it be okay with you if the president fired all the white male attorneys? how about all the ones over 50 years old? There's this doctrine/principle of "greater includes the lesser," that applies here.

But the thing is, that's not even the problem. The problem is whether the DOJ fired these prosecutors to interfere with investigations and prosecutions. That is improper and should be punished. Don't you agree?

Christian/citizen said...

"Me", to directly answer your question to me, most leftists/liberals (including socialists) ignore these truths (and many others):
1. Capitalism (not socialism)has proven to bring the most prosperity for the most people, and America's brand of capitalism offers opportunity to ALL.
2. This country is the greatest country in the world.
3. Our country became the greatest because our society self-identified itself as Christian. EVERYTHING in your life flows from what you think about God.
4. There is no way to eliminate human suffering.
5. This country was founded by Christians, emboldened by their faith in Jesus and faith in their cause.
6. Evolution is not fact or science, it is a theory with many leaps of faith and logic. It is a substitute for creationism for atheists.
7. Gay marriage undermines the traditional family unit (man/woman/offspring) by implying that the traditional family unit has no intrinsic value.

This is just a short list off the top of my head. There are many other truths that, in order to be a liberal, you must ignore/deny. Enjoy yourself for now, if you must, but you'll bow to Truth one day.

Me said...

Christian/citizen: the way I see it, for something to be called a "truth," it must be provable logically and/or empirically. So here's my question for you: can these truths you assert be proven in either one of these ways?

Let's do a quick little rundown:

1. Capitalism (not socialism)has proven to bring the most prosperity for the most people, and America's brand of capitalism offers opportunity to ALL. -- In principle, I agree with you. I just think you draw a false dichotomy between socialism and capitalism. They are not incompatible or even directly opposed.

2. This country is the greatest country in the world. -- please prove empirically or logically.

3. Our country became the greatest because our society self-identified itself as Christian. EVERYTHING in your life flows from what you think about God. -- again, pelase prove empirically or logically.

4. There is no way to eliminate human suffering. -- how buddhist of you. but the fact that there is no way to eliminate it does not mean we should strive to minimize it. there is no way to eliminate crime either, but then should all police officers just pack up and go home?

5. This country was founded by Christians, emboldened by their faith in Jesus and faith in their cause. -- again, please prove. espeicall in light of things like Jefferson's bible.

6. Evolution is not fact or science, it is a theory with many leaps of faith and logic. It is a substitute for creationism for atheists. -- it's a theory, you're right. In science, things are not called laws until they are overwhelmingly proven to be infallible. Quantum mechanics is also a theory. But the fact that it's a theory does not mean that there aren't large masses of evidence supporting this theory.

7. Gay marriage undermines the traditional family unit (man/woman/offspring) by implying that the traditional family unit has no intrinsic value. -- well, here you actually provide some argument to support your position. So let's address it. What is the intrinsic value of the traditional family? Most people who make this argument say that the value is the environment to bring up children. Therefore, allowing those who do not want to bring up children to marry allows these people get the tax benefits and other legal benefits of marriage without having children -- the reason the government provides incentives for the institution. But this reasoning is both under and over inclusive. Because not all heterosexual couples get married to have children, and not all gay couples don't want to have children. So, opposing gay marriage on the basis of the traditional-child-rearing argument is not logical, since the two are not logically related.

Anonymous said...

"To that end, shall I quote you some Imus, some Limbaugh, some Coulter, just so we can compare who makes the more outrageous statements?"

Don Imus is hardly an example of a conservative. I have made a proper distinction made on an enormous amount of evidence. Ann Coulter has never called anyone a Nazi or compared something harmless to the Holocaust. Her comments are intended to be funny, but often liberals don't get the joke. The fact is, those on the Left are the people that make these claims. There is no equivalency here no matter how much you want there to be. Like a true liberal, you want to declare things equal when the evidence does not support such a view. As Larry Elder says, "a fact to a toe tag liberal is like kryptonite to Superman"; evidence be damned. Conservatives are just more civil, and that is an empirically proven fact.

""The President has the authority, under the United States Constitution, to fire his political appointees at any time for any reason." -- would it be okay with you if the president fired all the white male attorneys? how about all the ones over 50 years old? There's this doctrine/principle of "greater includes the lesser," that applies here."

They are employees of the President, and thus the President can fire anyone at anytime.

"But the thing is, that's not even the problem. The problem is whether the DOJ fired these prosecutors to interfere with investigations and prosecutions. That is improper and should be punished. Don't you agree?"

The attorneys were fired because their views do not coincide with the views of the administration. Whether you like it or not, there is no crime here. However, that never stopped a liberal. If there is no crime, they will pretend there is.

Me said...

Here's the thing, anonymous, you state things like this: "The fact is, those on the Left are the people that make these claims. There is no equivalency here no matter how much you want there to be." over and over again, as if they were fact, but you provide no proof. I find this is very common among right wingers -- the delusion that if you say it enough times, it becomes true. And you have this strange relationship with facts. For example, here's Ann Coulter calling someone a Nazi:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200512020005
in direct contradition to your statement that "Ann Coulter has never called anyone a Nazi or compared something harmless to the Holocaust."

You say things like "Conservatives are just more civil, and that is an empirically proven fact." But again, saying it doesn't make it so. Provide a citation if you want people to believe you.

Then you write, "They are employees of the President, and thus the President can fire anyone at anytime." Well, actually they are the employees of the US government, not the president. The two are not synonymous, something many rightwingers fail to understand. In any case, yes, he can fire them at any time for any reason, within the bounds of other laws, like standards of political interference, as i mentioned earlier, and which you have again failed to address. There is substantial evidence that some of these US attorneys were fired because of the investigations they were conducting and the timing of their indictments -- if this is true, this would constitute political interference, and would jeopardize the carrying out of these prosecutions and justice. Surely you've heard about the furor surroudning Sen. Domenici's highly inappropriate phone calls to Us Attorney Iglesias.

"The attorneys were fired because their views do not coincide with the views of the administration. Whether you like it or not, there is no crime here."

No one ever said there was a crime. Not every breaking of the law is a crime. In any case, you're making conclusory statements again. You claim to know the reason these USAs were fired -- you're more sure than the White House and other government officials. Do you have a direct line to the mind of God?

Lastly, do rightwingers ever think 2 steps ahead? Evidence points to the contrary. Right now you're defending Bush's right to fire USAs who disagree with him, but is this how you want the president's relationship to be with USAs? Would it be okay with you if a Democratic president fired all USAs who are pro-life, for example, or all who believe in intelligent design? Don't you think that the law should be carried out without the political interference of the president, and that someone's personal beliefs should not get them fired from the job of prosecuting cases under US law?

Christian/citizen said...

And you prove my point. I accept these things as truths. You (liberals) do not. It's no one's responsibility (thankfully, because I know I don't have the energy or, probably, the ability) to prove each of these things to you, but they are true, whether you realize/accept it or not. BTW, I've seen proof of these things my whole life, and, I believe, you have, too, except that you choose not to believe.

Me said...

I accept these things as truths. You (liberals) do not. It's no one's responsibility (thankfully, because I know I don't have the energy or, probably, the ability) to prove each of these things to you, but they are true, whether you realize/accept it or not.

LOL. So you just believe whatever random thing someone tells you, or what pops into your head, without any proof? Why not believe in spontaneous generation, then? Or Zeus throwing lightning bolts from the sky, or the great spaghetti monster? If you don't need proof to believe in something, you are out to sea with no anchor.

BTW, I've seen proof of these things my whole life, and, I believe, you have, too, except that you choose not to believe.

Well speak for yourself. I don't see anything wrong with gay marriage, and I live among more gay people and more married gay people than you could possibly stand, I think.

I am a big fan of the US, but saying it's "the greatest country in the world" is so vague, it's almost nonsensical, so i'm not sure there can even be evidence of that.

I've seen pretty much only evidence to the contrary of your claims about america being a christian nation and our christian founding fathers.

And as for evolution, again, i see only evidence supporting evolution. Intelligent design isn't any evidence because it's not scientific.

Christian/citizen said...

"Me", you might be a good lawyer one day, but this isn't a courtroom, it's life. You cannot make life and truth conform to your debating rules so you can compare them side-by-side with your theories. Humanists (you and most liberals) only believe what can be proven to them, but as I said, truth is not obligated to come and be obedient. It is, whether you think it's fair or not.

Sean said...

Laws against unharnessed bears in trucks? Where would there by such a law? Is that illegal in 24 (and the adultery laws are still on the books in many more) States? Not a very valid comparison, me. Is that the best you can do? And will you be taking the BAR in New York? I feel bad for your potential clients.

Farmer John said...

Opposing gay marriage is perfectly logical.

"But this reasoning is both under and over inclusive. Because not all heterosexual couples get married to have children, and not all gay couples don't want to have children. So, opposing gay marriage on the basis of the traditional-child-rearing argument is not logical, since the two are not logically related."

Gay couples can't have children. Any. Yes they can adopt, but then so can people if they were unmarried. And so opposing the union of gays based upon the impossibility of them having children together is PERFECTLY logical.

Farmer John said...

What gays may or may not want and what they can actually physically perform are two entirely different things. The institution of marriage wasn't based upon "intent" to have children. It was based upon the actual ability and liklihood of producing them.

Farmer John said...

...and having a child with the DNA of only one partner negates the purpose of the institution. Otherwise monogamy would not be a requirement.

A child needs a support system consisting of two people with an equal interest in his well being.

Farmer John said...

I find it very revealing that no homosexuals even thought of getting married or challenging the law in America until after the marriage penalty was eliminated from the tax code. I guess they envied the DINKs.

Me said...

"...and having a child with the DNA of only one partner negates the purpose of the institution. Otherwise monogamy would not be a requirement."

Why don't you tell that to all the heterosexual couples who end up having children with the DNA of one the partners and the DNA of a 3rd person. It happens a lot, just go to any infertility clinic.

Or, tell that to the couples, both gay and straight, who adopt. Are you against adoption now too? Amazing.

"I find it very revealing that no homosexuals even thought of getting married or challenging the law in America until after the marriage penalty was eliminated from the tax code. I guess they envied the DINKs."

Well, they did think of it in Europe. the first civil unions in Europe were created in 1989 in Denmark, as far as I remember. As for the marriage penalty in the US, if you are two high-earners, you still pay much more in taxes than as two single people.

Me said...

Christian/citizen, you write "You cannot make life and truth conform to your debating rules so you can compare them side-by-side with your theories. Humanists (you and most liberals) only believe what can be proven to them, but as I said, truth is not obligated to come and be obedient. It is, whether you think it's fair or not." Well, honestly, it's not my "debating rules," it's logic. If the truth you believe in cannot really be proven, how do you know to believe in it as opposed to the flying spaghetti monster? Still wondering...

Sean, "Laws against unharnessed bears in trucks? Where would there by such a law? Is that illegal in 24 (and the adultery laws are still on the books in many more) States? Not a very valid comparison, me." I'm not sure who the number of states where there is the law has anything to do with the question, considering that the law is enforced VERY rarely across the country, and pretty much the only reason these laws still exist is because politicians don't want to propose removing them for fear of being labelled "pro-adultery."

"Putting sodomy and fornication laws aside, adultery laws are the most vulnerable to challenge. In the 20-some states that still criminalize adultery, the law goes largely if not totally unenforced - but occasionally, a possible test case does arise."
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/25/grossman.
oldlaws/index.html

This is what is known as a "dead letter law." "A dead letter can also refer to anything that has outlived its relevance, such as a law which has not been revoked but is obsolete, unapplicable, or no longer enforced. This includes, but is not limited to blue laws." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_letter

"Is that the best you can do? And will you be taking the BAR in New York? I feel bad for your potential clients."

Ah, the obligatory rightwing smear against one's chosen career and competency. This is about as common as the sexist insults of the "you're a fat cow, surely" variety and the "i feel sorry for the man who is the boyfriend of you, a harpy" variety. Please, worry about yourself -- don't worry about my clients. Is that the best you can do? Rightwingers rarely come up with anything new and creative. Little wonder that the creative class is all left-wing.

Farmer John said...

Again, current scientifically possible corruptions of the nature of conception as applied to the institution and it's purpose are not my responsibility. Are you attempting to argue that it would be BETTER for children if they were NOT raised by parties with an equal genetic investment in their upbringing. Corruptions (artifical insemination) and accomodations (adoption) made to ensure a "minimal' amount of security for the child being reared should NOT be converted to "norms".

And if you are single and a high earner you still have a lot less expenses than an equivalent married couple. The 1982 two income tax credit helped reduce that tax penalty and encourage couples to marry.

And the best environment for a child is to have one parent stay at home and raise him. Providing child-care tax credits to DINKs and single parents provides are an affront to the well being and rainsing of children. If kids could "vote" they'd want mommy to stay home.

Farmer John said...

An examination as to why adultery laws are unenforced would appear to be order. The laws were on the books in fifty states until the US Supreme Court, in its' infinite wisdom, invented a "privacy right" in the Constitution (a liberal invention). This meant that the opinion of just five people was sufficient to overturn the laws governing 300 million people, created and approved by fifty state legislatures and their courts. Nifty trick, that legislating by the judiciary. Is it any wonder that so many progressive aspire to be lawyers?

And it goes without saying that the ninth and tenth Amendments of the US Constitution are largely unenforced as well. Perhaps one could liken them to the harnessing of bears and classify them as dead letter laws as well....

Farmer John said...

...as for not being creative, conservatives by definition refuse to embrace change for the sake of change and label it progress...

yes, let's instiutionalize sodomy in the name of "progress"... in the middle of an AIDS epidemic...

Me said...

Are you attempting to argue that it would be BETTER for children if they were NOT raised by parties with an equal genetic investment in their upbringing.

I'm not saying it's better, I'm just saying it may be not very related. If you look around you, many of htereosexual married couples are not very good parents, even though they are married like you want them to be, and they are both genetically invested in the child. Child abuse, spousal abuse, failure to support the child materially and.or emotionally -- it happens across the spectrum, and it happens in opposite-sex couples of varoius means. And many couples taht are not "traditional" -- used IVF, are gay, adopted children -- are very good parents.

And the best environment for a child is to have one parent stay at home and raise him. Providing child-care tax credits to DINKs and single parents provides are an affront to the well being and rainsing of children. If kids could "vote" they'd want mommy to stay home.

(a) so, "one parent" or "mommy"?
(b) are you seriously arguing that whatever children want is automatically best for them? Sometimes they want to eat mud or cake for breakfast, or play around in rusty metalyards, or dive into a 2ft deep pool.
(c) what about what is good for the parents? do you think one parent staying at home with children is good for the marriage and for that parent? I don't.

Me said...

The 9th and 10th amendments? Funny you bring that up, because in Griswold, the case that first established the right to privacy, one of the concurruing opnions, by Justice Goldberg, I believe, based this right in the 9th amendment. You write that the court simply invented a right to override the legislatures of the states -- but that's how rights work, donchaknow, they are inalienable, not given to the people by the government, but owned by the people, and some are given to the government by the people. don't ever confuse the two. the ninth amendment says that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." It means that there are other rights out there beyond the bill of rights that override any state legislature.

yes, let's instiutionalize sodomy in the name of "progress"... in the middle of an AIDS epidemic...

Do you even know what sodomy means? It means any nonvaginal intercourse, including oral sex. Are you against oral sex? And it also includes anal sex by heterosexuals. And in case you are living under a rock in 1979, you can contract AIDS through vaginal intercourse. Public service announcement, for your benefit.

Wow, your idiotic comments never fail to impress, FJ. It's amazing. LOL

Farmer John said...

1) It may not be related??? So kids raised in an orphanage, by single mothers, in foster homes, by step-parents or by homosexuals have just as good an upbringing as kids raised in a "traditional" nuclear families? This may be true in individual cases, but not in the majority. So please provide empirical evidence supporting this novel contention. Yes there are some bad heterosexual parents, but statistic will bear out that the traditional nuclear family provides the best environment for raising children. Perhaps you should perform this study before attempting to alter the fabric of society based upon such a lack of convictionas "it may not be related..."

2a) either, but mommy is best. Or do you contend that women and men are equally "nurturing".

2b) no, not automatically. But G_d did not give children "instincts" for no reason.

2c) like I've said before, you (me) are very foolish. Marriage is ALL about raising children. What's best for children is that their parents create a nurturing environment for raising them, REGARDLESS of what the parents want. People who want to have lots of sex, pool their resources to stretch the rent, and/or fool around shouldn't get married or raise children. They don't need to.

Marriage Laws are meant to protect children, not parents. Adults are often foolish and marry for the wrong reasons. If you don't care about children, then don't get married. But if you are ever going to actually have children, I suggest you get married first. Not becuase I care about you. But because I care about them.

Farmer John said...

Please read Michael Fumento's "Myth of Heterosexual AIDS". The odds of transmitting the virus heterosexually through vaginal intercourse are nearly two orders of magnitude lower than via anal intercourse.

And yes, I am opposed to all forms of sodomy. I advocate sex for healthful (not recreational) purposes only.

And yes, I do know what our inalienable rights are. I think Madison's Memorial & Remonstrance summed it up rather nicely. And it is very obvious that the creation of a "right to privacy" is NOT such a right. It would indeed be a disparagement of those actual rights. Because if one were to actually read Madison, our inalienable rights are by their very inherent nature, private. As soon as our thoughts leave our skulls, they are no longer "private", by definition.

Farmer John said...

Please read Madison before you attempt to impose you liberal "religious" precepts upon us again in the future.

Anonymous said...

"...as if they were fact, but you provide no proof."

I have provided countless examples of the filth that the Left spews everyday. If you need more, try walking onto a college campus if you are David Horowitz or Ann Coulter, and liberals will throw pies at you. Simply look at the anti-war protest that are filled with anarchist and communist flags. Watch them defecate on American flags and burn our soldiers in effigy. Look at the 9/11 truth movement, which people like Rosie O'Donnell endorse, that believe George Bush was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. If you wish to argue that there is anything comparable coming from conservatives, then the burden of proof is on you. I am not going to argue your point for you.

Ann Coulter is a satirist, so your comments regarding her miss the target. Try again with some real examples this time; not politlcal jokes.

"Not every breaking of the law is a crime."

Interesting. When you break the law that is defined as a crime. I think you have a hard time understanding: THE PRESIDENT CAN FIRE ANYONE HE WANTS FOR ANY REASON HE WANTS. What will it take to get this point through your head? If the President wants to fire all those that believe in I.D., then the President can do so. Just because you do not like the decision, does not mean you can overthrow the law and interere with the Presidents decisions. There is this little thing called the seperation of powers.

Part of the reason why the attorneys were fired is because the President wants to go after illegal immigration more, and as such, he is going to appoint people that are going to do this. If the attorneys do not share the views of the administration, then it is just common sense to get rid of them; kind of like Bill Clinton did when he fired all 93 attorneys simultaneously.

Me said...

FJ:

1) You write: "but statistic will bear out that the traditional nuclear family provides the best environment for raising children. " I'm going to throw this right back at you: "please provide empirical evidence supporting this novel contention. "

2a) Regarding which gender is more nurturing, do you really want to get into the nature vs. nurture debate about this?

2b) Well, thanks for at least conceding that what children want is not necessarily what is best for them

2c) who died and made you the decider of what marriage is all about? this is what find incredible. I don't tell you how to run your life, so why do you want to tell me and other people whether we should or should not get married? Mind your own business. I really don't understand where you got the idea that somehow you should be deciding who other people marry and for what reason. We are equal, your contentions vs. mine -- neither has inherently more authority to tell others what to do.

3) "The odds of transmitting the virus heterosexually through vaginal intercourse are nearly two orders of magnitude lower than via anal intercourse." -- um... i think you've officially gone off the deep end. can you explain how in some african countries, there is a prevalence rate of almost 50%? Futhermore, once again, many heterosexual people have anal sex. "An earlier study published in 1994 showed that among heterosexuals, 26 percent of men and 20 percent of women had ever engaged in anal sex. And if anecdotes by experts are to be believed, the numbers have boomed in the last few years."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17285757/

4) "And yes, I am opposed to all forms of sodomy. I advocate sex for healthful (not recreational) purposes only." -- I am no medical doctor, but I think it's time for you to get yourself into therapy. I think this explains pretty much everything about you. Except I also think that you're just a little gay-curious.

Me said...

Anonymous, you're the classic example of "a little learning is a dangerous thing."

You write: "Interesting. When you break the law that is defined as a crime. I think you have a hard time understanding: THE PRESIDENT CAN FIRE ANYONE HE WANTS FOR ANY REASON HE WANTS. What will it take to get this point through your head?"

First of all, no, not every violation of the law is a crime. Civil offenses are not crimes.

But, more to the point, no, you're wrong, he can't. The President can't fire a USA because someone gave the President a bribe, for example. There are improper reasons for such firings, it's not an absolute power. Political interference is another such improper reason. What will it take to get this point through your head?

And regarding your "empirical" proof that conservatives are more civil. You fail to cite any link proving this. If you want to make a point, you have to prove it. The point you've made is that liberals are not civil. Fine. But if you want to say they are LESS civil than rightwingers, you'll have to prove it.

Anonymous said...

"First of all, no, not every violation of the law is a crime. Civil offenses are not crimes."

Pure semantics. If there is no violation of the law, then there is no crime or civil offense; I do not care what you call it. One has to break the law in order for there to be legal consequences, but the fact of the matter is that in the case of the firing of the attorneys, no law was broken. Nice equivocation though.

"But, more to the point, no, you're wrong, he can't. The President can't fire a USA because someone gave the President a bribe, for example. There are improper reasons for such firings, it's not an absolute power. Political interference is another such improper reason. What will it take to get this point through your head?"

Accepting a bribe is a crime in of and itself, thus it has no bearing on this situation. You are simply an apologist for the Democrats who care nothing about the law. They would call for congressional hearings if Bush picked his nose. The Democrats are a disgrace, and you ought to be ashamed for supporting them in this sitatuion. This is yet again an example of the Left supporting the indefensible.

Mean while, we have Nancy Pelosi going to Syria trying to make foreign policy. Sorry Pelosi, but you are not the President. Maybe we should have a hearing and throw her in jail.

"But if you want to say they are LESS civil than rightwingers, you'll have to prove it."

I already have done this. Since there are no examples of conservatives acting like these idiot liberals, that is the evidence. I suppose you would also argue that Hinduism is just as likely to produce terrorism is Islam. If you want to illustrate this fact, then you must provide examples that show this. I have done the research. If you want to counter it, then show how the two sides are equal. My job is not to provide evidence for your argument.

Farmer John said...

1) Sorry, but it is up to the person who desires a change in the status quo to prove that his "solution" is "better". Until then, I'll stand on thousands of years of human survival to justify my argument as to the best "family structure" for human survival under multiple scenarions and changes in environments...

2a) If you want to, but I think you're more than likely to lose it. Best stick to a nurture vs nurture debate. Do you believe than men and women are equally nurturing? If so, then why do courts typically grant custody to women?

2b) I'll concede if you'll concede that sometimes children do know what is best for them. Anybody's who as ever dealt with a crying baby should concede that argument.

2c) I'm not telling anybody what to do. I'm simply stating a consistent theory that fits together and interprets thousands of years of history in human marital relations. And it's not something I invented. This theory and its' "proofs" discounting other "forms" of marriage have been available for thousands of years. Read Freud's "Totem and Taboo". Read His "Civilzation and It's Discontents". Read Aeschulus' "Suppliant Maidens" and all the Greek tragedies based upon attempts at re-defining marriage. Marriage is the foundation of Law and Civilization. All attempts to modify have brought inevitable disaster to the cultures that strayed to far from the basic nuclear family model.

Then look around at primitive cultures and civilization throughtout the world. It's nuclear form survives and is everywhere omni-present, be the culture eastern or western, Christian or pagan.

3) I don't only condemn homosexuals for sodomy. I condemn heterosexuals for practicing it as well. And the statistics cited by Fumento involve studies of HIV infected heterosexuals whose partners are infected and have heterosexual contact anyway. It takes "thousands" of sexual contacts to spread the virus vaginally (to a male...only a single order of magnitude difference to give it to a female).

4) I've already explored homosexuality and uncovered my own feelings in that regard sufficiently to know that I'm not a homosexual, never was, never will be. I've also learned enough about psychology and neurology to understand what homosexuality is, both "from nature" and "from nurture". I may have been gay curious once, but no longer. A "phobia" comes from something "unknown", not something "known". And like I said before, where did you get your MD? And who are YOU to tell me what kinds of sexual activity I should engage in?

Sometimes you can tell more about a person from what he's unwilling to do, than the reverse. You're an Epicurean hedonist. I'm something of a stoic... but not quite an ascetic.

Have you ever read Essay 3 (What is the Meaning of Ascetic Ideals?) of Nietzcshe's "Genealogy of Morals"? You should. But then, you'd also have to read his second essay to understand the nature of the "sickness" asceticism produces. ;-)

Farmer John said...

And if you won't read Freud, explain why the foundations of progressive thought rest on Herbert Marcuses Freudian critique "Eros and Civilization" and why progressive have moved in lockstep to destroy the nuclear family ever since?

Me said...

Accepting a bribe is a crime in of and itself, thus it has no bearing on this situation. You are simply an apologist for the Democrats who care nothing about the law. They would call for congressional hearings if Bush picked his nose. The Democrats are a disgrace, and you ought to be ashamed for supporting them in this sitatuion. This is yet again an example of the Left supporting the indefensible.

Mean while, we have Nancy Pelosi going to Syria trying to make foreign policy. Sorry Pelosi, but you are not the President. Maybe we should have a hearing and throw her in jail.


So you foam and the mouth with baseless accusations and change the subject. Good work. You're a class act.

Farmer John said...

And btw - As an epicurean, you might find Euripides, "Bacchaea" about sexual curiosity extremely enlightening... not to mention Aeschylus' Oresteia's "Euminides" which represents the foundation of the trial by juty system in the first democracy.

And if your actually looking for a basis for the DNC and Pelosi's treason, please visit me and comment.

Me said...

"And like I said before, where did you get your MD? And who are YOU to tell me what kinds of sexual activity I should engage in?"

you're right, but i'm not telling you what to do. i'm just saying that what you admitted you do and don't do explains a lot about you, IMHO.

And please, quit name-dropping irrelevantly. You use it to muddy the waters and intimidate your opponents, but it's not impressive and just makes you look like an avoider of addressing the issues being discussed.

Anonymous said...

"So you foam and the mouth with baseless accusations and change the subject. Good work. You're a class act."

Baseless accusations? You have been defending the attacks on Alberto Gonzales for the last four or five post now. Are you also denying that Nansi Pelosi went to Syria? Open a newspaper.

Me said...

'll stand on thousands of years of human survival to justify my argument as to the best _________ for human survival under multiple scenarions and changes in environments...

You could, of course, make the same argument justifying slavery, and the rejection of modern medicine, and the equality of women.

"This is the way it's always been done" is no argument at all, because it provides no actual explanation regarding the benefit of something, just evidence that this is the way people have been doing things. That doesn't necessarily make it the best way to do things, in light of evolving technology, social mores, societal and economic conditions, new discoveries of science, etc.

Me said...

This is baseless blabbering that adds up to nothing:

You are simply an apologist for the Democrats who care nothing about the law. They would call for congressional hearings if Bush picked his nose. The Democrats are a disgrace, and you ought to be ashamed for supporting them in this sitatuion. This is yet again an example of the Left supporting the indefensible.

Farmer John said...

1) I'm not name dropping. I'm citing the sources of my information. I thought you were "into" citations.

2) In fact, it's the best argument. And it has always been up to those desirous of change to prove thay've something better to offer. So, make your case.

Nietzsche "Gay Science" -
The strength of conceptions does not, therefore, depend on their degree of truth, but on their antiquity, their embodiment, their character as conditions of life.

Me said...

I'm surprised you keep quoting Nietzsche, considering his views on religion and Christianity in particular.

"That's the way it's always been" is not a good argument. If that way of doing something is so great, it should be easy to prove its excellence without resorting to the cheap and easy argument of "well, that's the way it's always been." Like I said, lots of really stupid things were done for hundreds of years. It's no justification or evidence of support of anything at all.

Anonymous said...

"This is baseless blabbering that adds up to nothing:"

Rather than being baseless, they are based real life events. It illustrated two essential points.

1. You are attempting to defend the baseless attacks on Alberto Gonzales, which you have been shamelessly doing for a while now, and

2. The Democrats love to create scandals out of thin air. They did this with the Vallery Plame case, where no crime was committed, yet they want ahead with investigations anyways, and with the firings of the U.S. attorneys. These were both non-issues that the Democrats turned into huge scandals. Lets face it, the Democrats hate this administration. To say that the Democrats would hold hearings if Bush picked his nose illustrates this essential fact; it is not a statement to be taken literally.

Me said...

Anonymous:

1. It's pointless to go back and forth on the AG AG scandal. I offered some new information, you simply denied its importance and relevance with no basis.

2. I think it's the president who hates himself but doing all these incredibly stupid and probably illegal things. If you don't want scandals, don't fire USAs under dubious circumstances, and then have 5 million emails mysteriously disappear. Yes, we the Dems think this administration is out of control and needs to be reigned in. But please recall, during the Clinton presidency, there were also plenty of scandals -- did the Repubs back then "hate" the Clinton administration?

Anonymous said...

"I think it's the president who hates himself but doing all these incredibly stupid and probably illegal things. If you don't want scandals, don't fire USAs under dubious circumstances, and then have 5 million emails mysteriously disappear."

The President hates himself? What you are talking about? There is no basis to accuse him of doing illegal things. Just to get an understanding of where you are comming from, let me ask you one question: Did Bush lie us into the war?

Farmer John said...

It's in your court to provide a better argument. So far, you've provided nothing, leading me to conclude that your powers of observation and reasoning only extend to the critical and not all the way to the useful. You can "sound" Idols, but you cannot construct them.

And I quote Nietzsche because he performed the same philosophical function for Plato as Zeno did for Parmenides. Nietzsche's argument was the antithesis of Plato's and demonstrated the inconsistencies inherent in and results to be concluded from the opposing argument. Nietzsche so loved Western Civilization and Christianity, he wrote polemics to highlight the weaknesses that would be exploited by its' opponents today. He was an "untimely" philosopher who wrote for people 100 years in the future, people with long ears.

And so my argument is that marriage, as it is, has worked pretty good so far. Your argument is..."that's not good enough." So, it's up to you now to provide a "better" argument for changing the institution. People didn't abandon Newton for Einstein until Einstein had proved his contentions. So, prove yours. Show us your command of Nietzsche's "Gay Science".

Me said...

Nietzsche so loved Western Civilization and Christianity, he wrote polemics to highlight the weaknesses that would be exploited by its' opponents today.

So, by the same token, those Americans who criticize America and the current administration in particular are not traitors, but instead love America so much that they want to highlight its weaknesses to improve it?

Yes, Bush lied us into this war. Not only is the evidence there, but the majority of Americans agree with me.

Me said...

Though I think your characterization of Nietzsche's ideas regarding Christianity is completely idiotic, to be frank.

As evidence, I present to you the whole text of "The Antichrist." Here are some choice qoutes, though.

"In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point."
- Friedrich Nietzsche, The Antichrist, section 16

"What follows, then? That one had better put on gloves before reading the New Testament. The presence of so much filth makes it very advisable." - Section 46

"I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct for revenge for which no expedient is sufficiently poisonous, secret, subterranean, petty — I call it the one immortal blemish of mankind. "
- Sec. 62

Anonymous said...

"Yes, Bush lied us into this war. Not only is the evidence there, but the majority of Americans agree with me."

I knew it. You have simply lost all credibility. The question of whether or not Bush lied has been investigated numerous times, and there is simply no evidence for such a thing. The 9/11 commission, the Butler Report, among others have all looked into this. It is a lie to suggest that Bush lied. Please read this and educate yourself.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007540

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200401/pollack

Me said...

Blaming the intelligence is just more of the classic "mistakes were made" bassing the blame and responsibility to others. It's what Bush does all the time. There's been studies, reports, etc. endlessly streaming out of Congress about how the intelligence was cherry-picked, manipulated, how orders came down from the top to find intelligence linking Hussein to terrorism. The policy was set, the Downing Street Memo revealed that Bush was dead-set on going to war, no matter what happens.

Anonymous said...

"Blaming the intelligence is just more of the classic "mistakes were made" bassing the blame and responsibility to others."

There is no evidence of a lie. A huge number of Democrats voted for the war resolution. I suppose you did not read the papers debunking the "Bush lied people died" myth. To add to that, the United Nations Security Council Resolution passed resolution 1441 on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations". I suppose you also believe Tony Blair lied about the war as well. I will tell you who believes Bush lied: frauds, liars, flat eathers, and liberals. Please, please educate yourself, because your lies about the President and this country are very dangerous.

Let me ask you another question, to get an even better understanding of your positions. Who was responsible for the 9/11 attacks?

Me said...

There is no evidence of a lie. -- I think there is a lot of evidence that a lot of what he said was not true, and that he knew or should have known (a legal standard) that it wasn't.

A huge number of Democrats voted for the war resolution. -- that does not address whether he lied.

I suppose you did not read the papers debunking the "Bush lied people died" myth. -- an op-ed by norman podhoretz is not "the papers"

To add to that, the United Nations Security Council Resolution passed resolution 1441 on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations". -- now everyone's a self-appointed expert on UN jurisprudence and machinations. I've actually studied the UN extensively, and 1441 was not self-executing. I could get into this, but i'm sure you'll just dismiss it.

I suppose you also believe Tony Blair lied about the war as well. I will tell you who believes Bush lied: frauds, liars, flat eathers, and liberals. -- and a majority of Americans. Please don't leave them out.

Please, please educate yourself, because your lies about the President and this country are very dangerous. -- dangerous? how? that more people will find out that our president lied?

As for 9/11, I think that Bush was negligent -- I think that there was a lot of evidence, the system was blinking red, and Bush did nothing. Why? I don't know.

Anonymous said...

"I've actually studied the UN extensively, and 1441 was not self-executing. I could get into this, but i'm sure you'll just dismiss it."

It is not about being self-executing. The point is that the U.N. passed a resolution asking Iraq to disarm its WMD program. Now why would the U.N. pass this resolution if the U.N. did not believe Saddam had WMD? The whole world thought he had WMD, thus it is simply irresponsible to call Bush a liar.

"dangerous? how? that more people will find out that our president lied?"

It is dangerous because great lies about people are generally the cause of great evils. There are countless examples, such as the blood libel, where Jews were accused of drinking the blood of non-Jews. The lies about our President have not led to murder, but it has led to a great deal of hatred. This type of slander and libel cannot go unaswered.

"As for 9/11, I think that Bush was negligent -- I think that there was a lot of evidence, the system was blinking red, and Bush did nothing. Why? I don't know."

If Bush is negligent, than Clinton is even more negligent. He had an opportunity to get bin Laden and turned it down. I do not see how either President could be blaimed for doing nothing. The fact that you believe President Bush did nothing is scary. It is not as scary as beleiving Bush planned the attacks himself, but it is close to it, as you almost imply that he let it happen. You do believe the 9/11 attacks was done by al-Queda; right? I hope so. Please tell me you have some sanity left.

Me said...

Anonymous, you're so sloppy, it's ridiculous.

"It is not about being self-executing. The point is that the U.N. passed a resolution asking Iraq to disarm its WMD program. Now why would the U.N. pass this resolution if the U.N. did not believe Saddam had WMD? The whole world thought he had WMD, thus it is simply irresponsible to call Bush a liar." -- Ah, remember those weapons inspectors, doing their inspection rounds? They weren't allowed to finish their work, but it turns out, they were right, there were no WMD. Had they finished their work, the UN would have had a complete and full picture of Hussein's "WMDs." If there hadn't been any doubt as to his WMD possessions, why were there inspectors in the first place? And here's a case of sloppiness: what does that have to do with calling Bush a liar and irresponsibility?

"It is dangerous because great lies about people are generally the cause of great evils." -- That is so general and vague, I can't even respond. But it's true in this case: the lie of Hussein being connected ot Al-qaida and WMD, it has caused great evil. Sadly.

"The lies about our President have not led to murder, but it has led to a great deal of hatred." -- This is a great myth about the Left's relationship with Bush, that all our actions are motivated by this personal hatred of Bush. It's the persecution complex of the Right. Lordy lord no. We're motivated by the wrongs we ssee being done in our name upon our country and other countries. Bush is just one man -- there's no reason to hate him. But we can deplore his actions and work to stop him and limit the damage he has done. That is not at all synonymous with hate.

Here's another case of your sloppiness: "This type of slander and libel cannot go unaswered." Do you even know what slader and libel mean? They have nothing to do with hatred.

"If Bush is negligent, than Clinton is even more negligent. He had an opportunity to get bin Laden and turned it down." -- Where's Osama? Gotcha!

"It is not as scary as beleiving Bush planned the attacks himself, but it is close to it, as you almost imply that he let it happen." -- Well, up until about 2 years ago, 9/11 was the best thing to ever happen to this president, and you would be a fool to deny it. You may think I'm heinous for even contemplating such a thing, that Bush would simpyl let something like this happen for personal and political gain. But he's done many other heinous things that have resulted in his personal and political gain, so I don't put it past him.

And you think that the US government has never considered staging terrorist attacks against the American people for political purposes? See my next post.

"You do believe the 9/11 attacks was done by al-Queda; right? I hope so. Please tell me you have some sanity left." -- Yes, I do. But I also don't think they were done in a vacuum. They are what is known as "blowback."

Me said...

In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.

America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy's defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years.

"These were Joint Chiefs of Staff documents. The reason these were held secret for so long is the Joint Chiefs never wanted to give these up because they were so embarrassing," Bamford told ABCNEWS.com.



Read the rest:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662

Anonymous said...

"If there hadn't been any doubt as to his WMD possessions, why were there inspectors in the first place? And here's a case of sloppiness: what does that have to do with calling Bush a liar and irresponsibility?"

It has everything to do with it. British intelligence thought he had WMD, the CIA thought he had WMD, the U.N. thought he had WMD, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and many other Democrats thought he had WMD. If Bush lied, then the entire world lied because everyone thought Saddam had WMD, unless you are arguing that Bush alone convinced the whole world that Saddam had WMD. The only person to blame here is Saddam for not complying. He was given multiple opportunities, but he decided he wanted to play games instead. Well, we were sick of playing games. There is no evidence that Bush lied. It has been studied. Stop lying about our President.

"But it's true in this case: the lie of Hussein being connected ot Al-qaida"

This claim was never made. What was made is that there operation ties, but never a link to 9/11 itself. It is a fact that Saddam was shooting down American planes, and that he funded terrorism and supported suicide bombers in Israel. This is not to mention that the first Word Trade Center bombing was done by an Iraqi citizen. Former senior military advisor to Saddam Hussein, General Georges Sada, has claimed that Saddam did have WMD and transferred them to Syria. He also claims that Saddam had met with bin Laden in the past. He was one of the biggest enemies of the United States, and it was about time we liberated that country.

"You may think I'm heinous for even contemplating such a thing"

You are heinous for contemplating such a thing. Again, you spread lies about the President of the United States of America. It is sick. It is nothing but pure hatred.

"Yes, I do. But I also don't think they were done in a vacuum. They are what is known as "blowback.""

Right, it was all our fault. Who are you, Ward Churchill? It was the chickens coming home to roost, right? Were the people that were murdered also little Eichmenns?

Me said...

"British intelligence thought he had WMD, the CIA thought he had WMD, the U.N. thought he had WMD, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and many other Democrats thought he had WMD. If Bush lied, then the entire world lied because everyone thought Saddam had WMD, unless you are arguing that Bush alone convinced the whole world that Saddam had WMD." -- Bush wanted to push his agenda, the lines were drawn on political grounds, not truth-based grounds. Those who wanted Saddam Hussein removed suddenly dusted off their pro-WMD intelligence. It was a very dubious case over here, btw. "Curveball" the main source, was known to be a liar, his interrogators told Tenet not to use his testimony, yet it somehow ended up in Powell's speech to the UN. And it turned out to be a lie.

"The only person to blame here is Saddam for not complying. He was given multiple opportunities, but he decided he wanted to play games instead." -- he did document dumps saying he had no WMD, and Bush chose not to believe him. Who's the liar, in this case?

As for al-Qaida- Saddam link, again your strange relationship with facts:

"The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

Hussein had ties to Palestinian terrorists, but not Al-qaida.

You write: "This is not to mention that the first Word Trade Center bombing was done by an Iraqi citizen." -- well, now, again with the facts. There was more than one person involved in WTC '93, and if we're going to go down this road, no Iraqis were involved in 9/11, Richard Reid is a british citizen, and Moussaoui is French. The rest were Saudi and Egyptian. why haven't we invaded any of those countries?

"Former senior military advisor to Saddam Hussein, General Georges Sada, has claimed that Saddam did have WMD and transferred them to Syria. He also claims that Saddam had met with bin Laden in the past." -- has any of this been verified? No.

"He was one of the biggest enemies of the United States, and it was about time we liberated that country." -- oh yeah, we sure liberated them. I'd write "LOL' if the situation Iraq weren't so unbelievably tragic.

"Again, you spread lies about the President of the United States of America. It is sick. It is nothing but pure hatred." -- see, more baseless BS. cut the crap and just present facts and arguments instead of ad hominem hyperbole and strawmen.

"Right, it was all our fault." - I didn't say that, and i don't think so. It's al-qaida's fault, but it is myopic to ignore the historical context for what has happened, the history of al qaida, the history of the middle east, and the history of US involvement in the middle east. Things don't happen in vacuums.

Farmer John said...

Perhaps if you were to read everything Nietzsche ever wrote, like I have, you might understand his writings a little betters. And perhaps if I were to quote the Christian virtues that Nietzsche believed would lead to the downfall of Western Civilization you wouldn't so smugly revel in Nietzsche's condemnation of Christianity in his "Anti-Christ." For the left has many of the same virtues in spades and to a fault.

And I agree that healthy dissent is very useful to our society. Our Republic was constructed upon this sound principle of opposing ambition with ambition. Of course, a number of the Constiution's checks and balances were severly weakened in the twentieth century, and the DNC is presenting many more ideas to destroy the system our founders developed to take advantage of said opposition.

Your problem with the war, however, , is that the "new left" has departed from the realm of "healthy" dissent into the realm of the treasonous moralizing. You really should have taken your cues from Lindberg and the WWII "America Firster's" and moved your dissent to the backrooms as soon as the war started. Instead, you've taken your cues from Jane Fonda and the anti-war movement and moved it to the front and center of the public sphere. I contend that Nietzsche would believe that your morality and "Christianity" is going to get us all killed.

And btw - I'm still waiting for your argument that describes how homosexual marriage strengthens the family and fabric of society through thick and thin... and that the children adopted by homosexuals fair so much better than the children raised in an environment of sexual balance of mother and father in a traditional marriage.

Farmer John said...

Here's Nietzsche's assessment of one of the Left's "Marxist -Christian" virtues from "Gay Science"

Whether it is hedonism or pessimism, utilitarianism or eudaemonism - all these ways of thinking that measure the value of thing in accordance with pleasure and pain , which are mere epiphenomena and wholly secondary, are ways of thinking that stay in the foreground and naivetes on which everyone conscious of creative powers and an artistic conscience will look down not without derision, nor without pity. Pity with you - that, of course, is not pity in your sense: it is not pity with social "distress", with "society" and its sick and unfortunate members, with those addicted to vice and maimed from the start, though the ground around us is littered with them; it is even less pity with grumbling, sorely pressed, rebellious slave strata who long for dominion, calling it "freedom". Our pity is a higher and more farsighted pity: we see how man makes himself smaller, how you make him smaller - and there are moments when we behold your very pity with indescribable anxiety, when we resist this pity - when we find your seriousness more dangerous than any frivolity. You want, if possible - and there is no more insane "if possible" - to abolish suffering . And we? It really seems that we would rather have it higher and worse than ever. Well-being as you understand it - that is no goal, that seems to us an end , a state that soon makes man ridiculous and contemptible - that makes his destruction desirable .

The discipline of suffering, of great suffering - do you not know that only this discipline has created all enhancements of man so far? That tension of the soul in unhappiness which cultivates its strength, its shudders face to face with great ruin. its inventiveness and courage in enduring, persevering, interpreting and exploiting suffering and whatever has been granted to it of profundity, secret, mask, spirit, cunning, greatness - was it not granted to it through suffering, through the discipline of great suffering? In man creature and creator are united: in man there is material, fragment, excess, clay, dirt, nonsense, chaos; but in man there is also creator, form giver, hammer, hardness, spectator divinity, and seventh day: do you understand this contrast? And that your pity is for the "creature in man". for what must be formed, broken, forged, torn, burnt, made incandescent, and purified - that which necessarily man and should suffer? And our pity - do you not comprehend for whom our converse pity is when it resists your pity as the worst of all pamperings and weaknesses?

Thus it is pity versus pity.

But to say it once more: there are higher problems than all problems of pleasure. pain. and pity; and every philosophy that stops with them is naive.

Me said...

So let's see. You were an officer in the navy or marines or something, you stay abstinent and count the number of days between your nocturnal emissions, you believe in sex only for "healthful" not recreationary purposes, you don't partake in oral sex, you hate gays, you believe the bible has no contraditions, you've read everything Nietzsche has ever written.

so you want to be the ubermensch, you have something to prove to yourself. that's why you went to the army, that's why you hate gay men (you don't really care about the gay women, like most anit-gay rightwingers) -- they corrupt your fragile image of masculinity that you have painstakingly constructed. like Nietzsche, you're a masochist, you take pleasure in suffering, in depriving yourself of things you want. like nietzsche, you don't partake in sex, you view sexual desire as some sort of weakness, capitulation to women's wiles, so you view abstinence as a symbol of strength. In fact, you view "desire" for anything as weakness, and you take masochistic pleasure in denying your desired things to yourself. Well, that's how you choose to live your life, obviously. My take on the situation, as an atheist who doesn't believe in an afterlife, is that you only get to live once, so why live life denying yourself everything? No matter how much of an ubermensch you are, you and I are both going to die. And that will be the end.

Anyhoo, nietzsche hated christianity, he hated faith. He hated the mediocrity of the common man. Whatever else you say about him, you can't deny these facts, and they are completely contradictory to your being and your beliefs.

You write "And perhaps if I were to quote the Christian virtues that Nietzsche believed would lead to the downfall of Western Civilization you wouldn't so smugly revel in Nietzsche's condemnation of Christianity in his "Anti-Christ."" -- isn't there a contradiction here? If you are a Christian, you espouse these values that Nietzsche believed would be the downfall of western civilization. Or are you not a christian? How can you love Nietzsche and espouse Christian charity? It hink that they are plainly contradictory -- you follow one or the other, on this one. It's no false dichotomy.

Further, you write "the "new left" has departed from the realm of "healthy" dissent into the realm of the treasonous moralizing." This is pointless babbling, frankly. As long as it's protected speech, it's dissent, not "treasonous moralizing" or any other creative label you want to put on it. And it's protected as long as it's not calling for violent overthrow of the government and has a moderate chance of success. If you don't like the definition of protected speech, take it up with the supreme court. Or you can move to Iran or Russia or some other lovely place where they shut up "treasonous moralizers."

Anonymous said...

"cut the crap and just present facts and arguments instead of ad hominem hyperbole and strawmen."

You are the one that needs to present facts for you idiotic claims that Bush lied. There is no such evidence for an accusation like this and you ought to apologize for making such an ignorant claim. It is a straw man argument because YOU SAID HE LIED! I am arguing against your ignorant and misguided comments; hardly a straw man. Arguing with someone over Bush lying is like arguing over the moon landing. Please tell me; did the United States land on the moon?

"As for al-Qaida- Saddam link, again your strange relationship with facts:"

He had links to Islamic terrorism and we are at war with Islamonazi's. Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, al-Qaeda, who ever it may be, they are all evil, and they must be fought. We know he was funding terrorism are shooting at U.S. planes. It was a former general of Saddam that suggested he had met with bin Laden.

"but it is myopic to ignore the historical context for what has happened, the history of al qaida, the history of the middle east, and the history of US involvement in the middle east. Things don't happen in vacuums."

There is nothing that can justify what the Islamofascist are doing. You basically say "its not our fault, but you can't ignore that our history brought this on". So which one is it? Is it because of something we do or not? They are motivated by a bastardized version of Islam. What is going on now is no different that the Muslims that invaded and conqured Spain and the Byzantine Empire. They want to destroy infidels, and all one needs to do is read there own damn words. They are telling you what they want to do and why, and somehow you ignore it. For example:

"The day will come when we will rule America. The day will come when we will rule Britain and the entire world - except for the Jews. The Jews will not enjoy a life of tranquility under our rule because they are treacherous by nature, as they have been throughout history. The day will come when everything will be relieved of the Jews - even the stones and trees which were harmed by them. Listen to the Prophet Muhammad, who tells you about the evil end that awaits Jews. The stones and trees will want the Muslims to finish off every Jew."
-Sheik Ibrahim Mudeiris on Palestinian Authority's official TV Station

I suppose the Jews brought it on themselves.

Me said...

Anonymous, how many times have I shown you were wrong on the facts now? 3 times? 4?

Just cant' admit you're wrong, can you? Typical rightwinger.

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous, how many times have I shown you were wrong on the facts now? 3 times? 4?

Just cant' admit you're wrong, can you? Typical rightwinger."

Right. Accusing Bush of lying is about as credible as the theories of David Icke. It is really pathetic, but you know the saying, "a fact to a toe tag liberal is like kryptonite to Superman". Don't let the those pesky facts get in the way of your hatred for the President; just continue to rot in your lies.

You may like David Icke; I mean his theories sound about as credible as yours. He is a supporter of the Green Party who believes "that the world is ruled by a secret group called the 'Global Elite' or 'Illuminati,' which he has linked to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an anti-Semitic hoax. In 1999, he published The Biggest Secret, in which he wrote that the Illuminati are a race of reptilian humanoids known as the Babylonian Brotherhood, and that many prominent figures are reptilian, including George W. Bush, Queen Elizabeth II, Kris Kristofferson, and Boxcar Willie."

George Bush is a reptilian humanoid from outerspace; no wonder he is so evil. Maybe you and Mr. Icke should get together.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Icke

Farmer John said...

Because you can't back anything you say up... you construct strawmen to personally attack. LOL!

You really should move beyond critical theory. The only tool in your toolbox is a hammer. I think I'm gonna have a lot of fun with you.

Farmer John said...

Once upon a time there were three little pigs. Each one decided to build himself a house. The first little pig met a man who was carrying a bundle of straw.
"If you please," Said the little pig, "will you give me some of that straw to make me a house?"
"With pleasure," replied the man, and away went the little pig with the straw and built his house.
Now, and artful old wolf who lived near by determined to have the little pig for supper. So when it grew dark he went up to the little straw house and called out: "Little pig, little pig, may I come in?"
But the little pig knew his voice and said: "No, no; by the hair on my chinny, chin, chin!"
"Ho, ho!" cried the wolf. "Then I'll huff and I'll puff till I blow your house in."
So he huffed and he puffed, and he huffed and he puffed till the house fell down. Then he sprang inside, pounced on the little pig and gobbled him up.

Me said...

FJ, you're a freaky freaky man.

Anonymous, you write that Bush didn't lie. Here's an example of a story for you.

In an interview with German magazine Der Spiegel, the former CIA chief for Germany says:

"The administration wanted to make the case for war with Iraq. They needed a tangible thing, they needed the German stuff. They couldn't go to war based just on the fact that they wanted to change the Middle East. They needed to have something threatening to which they were reacting."

"I had assured my German friends that [Curveball] wouldn't be in the speech. I really thought that I had put it to bed. I had warned the CIA deputy John McLaughlin that this case could be fabricated. The night before the speech, then CIA director George Tenet called me at home. I said: "Hey Boss, be careful with that German report. It's supposed to be taken out. There are a lot of problems with that." He said: "Yeah, yeah. Right. Dont worry about that.""

http://www.spiegel.de/international/
spiegel/0,1518,462782,00.html

And then it ended up in the speech. How did this happen? Did Tenet just like to his subordinate? Disregard his instructions about the questionable nature of the report? Or did Tenet tell Bush about the reservations about the report, and Bush chose to use it anyway (as we see now to his own detriment)? Bush's defense against the charge of lying has been "I didn't know, it's my underlings' fault -- the intelligence community, the DOJ, the NSA, whatever, just not me." To me, it's frightening that a decision of this monumental proportion (to go to war in Iraq) could have been made with a presdient who is only 10% informed of what is going on in his own government, duped by his own people. So, either Bush isn't fit to be president because he didn't have any handle on his subordinates' malfeasance, or he is a participant in the malfeasance -- he lied. which is worse, you tell me.

Then you write: "He had links to Islamic terrorism and we are at war with Islamonazi's. Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, al-Qaeda, who ever it may be, they are all evil, and they must be fought. "

Now you're just trying to muddy the waters and be sloppy. It matters who he is involved with. FACTS MATTER, i know this is shocking for you rightwingers to hear.

Now, I agree with you that the US should not support terrorism, but even aside from the fact that in the late 1980's, Al Qaida and its members were supported by the US, the US military is currently supporting an officially designated terrorist group ( http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/
meast/04/05/protected.terrorists/
index.html)

Now, is president bush waging a war on terror or not? Again, i think he's just a liar.

Finally, you write: "You basically say "its not our fault, but you can't ignore that our history brought this on". So which one is it? Is it because of something we do or not? They are motivated by a bastardized version of Islam."

History, my friend, is, most of the time, much more complicated and boring than that. Anyone who has even remotely dablled in history knows that there's almost always multiple explanations for historical events, multiple forces working together. It's never just one. So to say taht all Islamic terrorism is caused by a bastardized version of Islam is simply so naive and ignorant. You think that the west's interference in themdidle east for the last 100 years has nothing to do with it? The ecnomic situation, the oil has nothing to with it? Surely you're not saying that, are you?

Farmer John said...

me,

Do you know the difference between wisdom and justice?

So you know the difference between courage and temperance?

Do you know what virtue is?

I think you're about to learn.

Farmer John said...

Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives... You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.

We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!

Me said...

FJ, you write: "Do you know the difference between wisdom and justice?

So you know the difference between courage and temperance?

Do you know what virtue is?"

It's blah blah. Pointless words and concepts that mean very subjective things, individual things to individual people. Semiotic signifiers that don't have a constant signified. You imagine yourself, it seems, much more wise and moral than you are, at least in my eyes.

Farmer John said...

I didn't think so.

Me said...

Thing is, FJ, I really doubt that you can provide compelling defitions of those concepts that are not highly subjective. But if you can, I'd love to hear them.

PS Just saying your definitions "not subjective" does not make them so.

Farmer John said...

If you don't know what justice is, how can you complain of injustice?

Me said...

I'm glad that you've at least back off your completely unbelievable claims about Nietzsche and Christianity. I'll take your silence on the topic as a tacit admission of the inherent contradition in your position.

Farmer John said...

And why should we liten to your complaints?

Farmer John said...

Friedrich Wilhelm IV, after whom Nietzsche was named, and who had been responsible for Nietzsche's father's appointment as Röcken's town minister. Nietzsche's grandfathers were also Lutheran ministers, and his paternal grandfather, Friedrich August Ludwig Nietzsche, was further distinguished as a Protestant scholar, one of whose books (1796) affirmed the "everlasting survival of Christianity."

Me said...

You didn't ask what justice was, you asked if I know the difference between justice and "wisdom."

But you're right, I do know what justice is, but again, that concept is highly subjective. I imagine you and I differ on whether Saddam Hussein got justice, on which crimes are worse than others, and should therefore punished more, on whether the concept of justice includes the death penalty, on whether Gitmo is "just," etc.

I don't think you and I are going to have any concensus on the topic, and greater minds have been debating these issues with much greater sophistication than you and I can achieve here.

Me said...

Nietzsche's ancestry has nothing to do with his own views regarding Christianity. You know this, you're not that stupid, are you?

You don't have to listen to my complaints. I never said you did. You've chosen to engage in debating with me.

Farmer John said...

You find it hard to believe that criticism can be done out of love and not hate. That is unsurprising.

Farmer John said...

If justice is highly subjective, why do we need a UN? Won't their decisions be arbitrary? Aren't there human "rights" and violations of them?

Farmer John said...

Do you know what wisdom is?

Me said...

You write: "You find it hard to believe that criticism can be done out of love and not hate. That is unsurprising."

No, i'm not making that general statement. I'm talking about Nietzsche specifically. Neither you nor I can really get into his head and see his real motivations, but I think that his writings make it abundantly clear, repeatedly, that he abhors Christianity and everything for which it stands (in his view).

You write: "If justice is highly subjective, why do we need a UN? Won't their decisions be arbitrary? Aren't there human "rights" and violations of them?"

The UN has made choices, they are subjective. Under a different ethical system, the UN could be quite different. Now, when you talk about their "decisions," do you mean the International court of justice, which is essentially powerless? The General Assembly, which is also powerless? Or do you mean the Security Council, over which 5 countries (UK, US, France, China, Russia) have veto power?

I think the choices the UN has made are possibly the best possible choices in our world, but that doesn't make them objectively just or better than other possible choices. I agree with a lot of the choices, but you probably don't.

We're touching on a big problem in international law - are there standards that cannot be infringed (also known as peremptory norm, or jus cogens)? Some people don't even believe in jus cogens. Many people do, but its prohibitions are incredibly limited, limited to only the "Worst of the worst" crimes, such as torture, piracy, war crimes, aggressive war, violations of diplomatic safe conducts. According to some, it doesn't even include genocide, which is covered by a separate convention.

Outside of these (almost) universally recognized heinous offenses, there isn't concensus on what is unjust. The Universal Declaration of human Rights, for example, is not a treaty, just an act of the General Assembly, because as a treaty, few countries, especially powerful ones like the US, would have signed it, for fear of limiting their sovereign powers.

so, tell me again about an objective definition of justice?

Farmer John said...

After graduating from Schulpforta, Nietzsche entered the University of Bonn in 1864 as a theology and philology student, but his interests gravitated more exclusively towards philology -- a discipline which then centered upon the interpretation of classical and biblical texts. As a philology student, Nietzsche attended lectures by Otto Jahn (1813-1869) and Friedrich Wilhelm Ritschl (1806-1876). Jahn was a biographer of Mozart who had studied at the University of Berlin under Karl Lachmann (1793-1851) -- a philologist known both for his studies of the Roman philosopher Lucretius and for having developed the genealogical method in textual recension; Ritschl was a classics scholar whose work centered on the Roman comic poet Plautus (254-184 BC). Inspired by Ritschl, and following him to the University of Leipzig in 1865 -- an institution located closer to Nietzsche's hometown of Naumburg -- Nietzsche quickly established his own academic reputation through his published essays on Aristotle, Theognis and Simonides. In Leipzig, he developed a close friendship with Erwin Rohde, a fellow philology student, with whom he would correspond extensively in later years. Momentous for Nietzsche in 1865 was his accidental discovery of Arthur Schopenhauer's The World as Will and Representation (1818) in a local bookstore. He was then 21. Schopenhauer's atheistic and turbulent vision of the world, in conjunction with his highest praise of music as an art form, captured Nietzsche's imagination, and the extent to which the "cadaverous perfume" of Schopenhauer's world-view continued to permeate Nietzsche's mature thought is still a matter of scholarly debate. After discovering Schopenhauer, Nietzsche read F.A. Lange's newly-published History of Materialism and Critique of its Present Significance (1866) -- a work which criticized materialist metaphysical theories from the standpoint of Kant's critique of metaphysics in general, and attracted Nietzsche's interest in its view that metaphysical speculation is an expression of poetic illusion.

Nietzsche actually developed a metaphysics for unbelievers and atheists. He called it "Eternal Recurrence".

Farmer John said...

You want an objective definition? It's the opposite of wisdom.

Me said...

And so? None of this takes away from his atheism and hatred of Christianity and everything it stands for.

I'm telling you, give it up. You won't be able to reconsile Nietzsche and your "the bible has no internal contraditioncs" Christianity.

Grow a pair and admit you've got a problem here.

Farmer John said...

Of course, you probably need to have read Plato's "Republic" to understand the truth of that. Have you read "Republic"? I think many high school students today read it. Have you?

Me said...

Of course, you probably need to have read Plato's "Republic" to understand the truth of that.

The truth of what, exactly?

Yes, i read the Republic in high school.

Farmer John said...

Oh, there's a paradox alright. But just as Zeno's paradoxa have solutions, so does this one.

btw - Do you know what the term paradox means? It means beyond opinion. Have you studied many epistemologies?

Farmer John said...

What was Republic about. What was it's "subject"? Do you recall?

Me said...

Oh, there's a paradox alright. But just as Zeno's paradoxa have solutions, so does this one.

Not all paradoxes have solutions. Just because some do doesn't mean that all do. You know this.

Care to address the issues head on, or are you going to continue to dodge the problematic questions?

Me said...

What was Republic about. What was it's "subject"? Do you recall?

What is your point? The Republic, contrary to your strange belief, is not the end-all, be-all of all opinion about matters of government and state, including justice. It is just one of many submissions to answer the important questions. Plato tries to define justice, but that definition may not be very good, or very current, and everyone is free to disagree.

Anonymous said...

All I can say me, is get help. You do not reason; you emote, and your hatred for the president is why you believe he lied. You should be ashmed for slandering the President of the United States of America. It it is a pathologic illness.

Robert Einhorn, Clinton's assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation, said:

"How close is the peril of Iraqi WMD? Today, or at most within a few months, Iraq could launch missile attacks with chemical or biological weapons against its neighbors (albeit attacks that would be ragged, inaccurate, and limited in size). Within four or five years it could have the capability to threaten most of the Middle East and parts of Europe with missiles armed with nuclear weapons containing fissile material produced indigenously—and to threaten U.S. territory with such weapons delivered by nonconventional means, such as commercial shipping containers. If it managed to get its hands on sufficient quantities of already produced fissile material, these threats could arrive much sooner."

Long before Bush was in office the United States believed Saddam had WMD.

In 1998, which President Clinton signed, the United States passed the Iraq Liberation Act, calling for regime change in Iraq.

In 1998, Clinton said, "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction program."

In 2002, the National Intelligence Estimate concluded with "high confidence" (which is the highest level of confidence) that "Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions."

I could go on, but what would be the point? You have shown that your decisions are not based on factual evidence.

Me said...

Anonymous, I provided you with two crucial facts. (1) That Curveball's interrogators warned that he was not reliable, and yet his erroneous testimony was used by Tenet, Powell and Bush, and was on of the most important justifications for the war, (2) the US is currently protected an anti-Iran terrorist group.

You fail to address these facts, switching subjects to Clinton & Iraq.

You are dishonest, you don't want to admit you are wrong, that there are problems with your ideas.

PS Slander is oral utterances. So, uh, it's the wrong word. But i'm sure you don't care -- you don't care about reality, facts, definitions, precision.

Farmer John said...

Republic only uses the example of a state to illustrate one concept of "applied" justice.... a rather "second-rate" one modified to serve a rather "sickly" end/purpose. It was an example of justice "writ large" so as to understand justice "writ small".

But to apply justice is to "corrupt" it to serve a purpose. And that corruption is called "wisdom".

Farmer John said...

You say the the UN's International Court of Justice has no power... perhaps that is becuase it has no wisdom, either. And perhaps justice tempers wisdom much as wisdom tempers justice. Possible?

Farmer John said...

The USA has an Executive branch and a legislative branch. Why do you suppose the founders separated powers in this manner... justice being unable to execute and the executive not responsible for dispensing justice?

Anonymous said...

"Slander is oral utterances. So, uh, it's the wrong word. But i'm sure you don't care -- you don't care about reality, facts, definitions, precision."

Stop playing sementics. I do not care what you call it; slander or libel, you are spreading lies about the President. You suffer from an illness and you need help.

The Clinton Administration believed he had WMD, and Clinton signed regime change in Iraq as official US policy. The British thought he had WMD, the Russians thought he had WMD, the UN passed a resolution asking Saddam to get rid of his WMD program. It is just stupid to argue that Bush lied. I pity you.

Tell me, do you also believe that George Bush is part of the Illuminati? Do you believe he is a reptilian alien from another planet? Tony Blair and George Bush conspired to take over the world...muhahahha. Get your head on straight before you hurt somebody.

Me said...

Stop playing sementics. I do not care what you call it; slander or libel, you are spreading lies about the President. You suffer from an illness and you need help.

See, you don't care about the actual facts. This is exactly the kind of thinking, "Saddam! Osama! What's the difference?" that got us into this mess in the first place.

The Clinton Administration believed he had WMD, and Clinton signed regime change in Iraq as official US policy. The British thought he had WMD, the Russians thought he had WMD, the UN passed a resolution asking Saddam to get rid of his WMD program. It is just stupid to argue that Bush lied. I pity you.

I'll be okay without your pity. But the point is, maybe they all thought he had WMDs, but none of them actually went into a disasterous, poorly-thought-out and poorly-executed war over it. It turns out, Hussein didn't have WMDs, so this has been a very expensive mistake -- perhaps the WMD claim should have been verified just a little more before spending $1.7 trillion (with a "tr") on the basis of it, doncha think? The UN was trying to verify, but they didn't finish their job because of the US invasion. The situation with Curveball that I've described shows you exactly the quality of intelligence that we had on whether Saddam has biological weapons labs and WMD.

Oh, and keep ignoring the Curveball stories, and the MKK story. Your silence speaks volumes.

Anonymous said...

"See, you don't care about the actual facts. This is exactly the kind of thinking, "Saddam! Osama! What's the difference?" that got us into this mess in the first place."

That is a false analogy, because bin Laden and Saddam do not refer to the same person. I was refering to you lying about the president. Whether you call it slander, libel, or cheese wiz does not matter to me. The concept is what matters.

"I'll be okay without your pity. But the point is, maybe they all thought he had WMDs, but none of them actually went into a disasterous, poorly-thought-out and poorly-executed war over it. It turns out, Hussein didn't have WMDs, so this has been a very expensive mistake --"

This conversation has nothing to do with mistakes; it has to do with whether or not Bush lied, and considering that the United States government believed Saddam had WMD long before George Bush was in office, and that President Clinton in 1998 said Saddam had WMD, it is just stupid to argue that Bush lied about WMD. Are you going to argue that Bush convinced the Clinton administration that Saddam had WMD? Are you going to argue that Bush coerced Clinton into signing the Iraqi Liberation Act? All of this long pre-dates Bush.

Are you then going to argue that Bush fooled the UN into beleiving Saddam had WMD? Are you going to argue that he fooled Congress into passing the war resolution in Iraq? Are you going to argue that he tricked Tony Blair as well? In order for you theory to hold, you have to believe that Bush fooled the Clinton administration before he was in office, and then fooled the entire world while he was in office.

Now you see, a lie is when you know the truth and tell otherwise. Saying something you believe to be true, even if it is not true, is not a lie. This is not semantics.

"perhaps the WMD claim should have been verified just a little more before spending $1.7 trillion"

Most of government spending does not go to defense, including the war (about 20% does). If you are concerned about government spending, try eliminating welfare, food stamps, farm subsidies, the department of education, social security, and medicare/medicaid. Chances are, I really do not think you are all that concerned with government spending.

Me said...

Anonymous, why is this so hard to undertand? Yes, there was evidence during the clinton years that saddam may have WMDs, but because this evidence was not the basis for any mass-scale military action, it didn't need to be investigated as thoroughly as if this intelligence is going to be the basis for a war. What Bush did is took some murky, expired, questionable evidence and inflated into a "smoking gun," knowing all the while that the intelligence was not very reliable. And before the Iraq WAr, the US had a lot of credibility -- if the US intelligence says there are WMD in Iraq, people were inclined to believe it. No longer, of course, sine we now know all that intelligence was just cherry-picked, without regard for its reliability or other contradictory intelligence.

Yes, Bush lied. He knowingly misled his constituents and our former allies regarding the threat from Iraq. Study after study shows that before the war, the case for war was very shaky.

Farmer John said...

"there isn't concensus on what is unjust."

"Plato tries to define justice, but that definition may not be very good, or very current, and everyone is free to disagree."

And in the absense of a consensus opinion, there can be no "objective" measure, can there? Yet you insist that I provide an "objective" definition even though you believe it doesn't exist. And if it doesn't exist, then there is no possibility that ANY justice can "exist", and that justice is, as you said, just a " Semiotic signifiers that don't have a constant signified."

And if this is true, that justice is an "impossibility"...what "crime" are you complaining about that was committed at Abu Ghraib? Obviously no "injustice" can have been committed since if no "justice" exists then obviously there can be no "injustice".

And so, who gives a flying 'f if Bush lied? There's no injustice in lying.

What do you care about whether we invaded Iraq or not or adhere to the principles of "just" war theory or simply invaded to take their oil? Don't the powerful have a right to take what they want? What's the injustice in that. In fact Thrasymachus would say that such action is the very essence of justice?

But what if "justice" is not merely a Procrustean amorphous object. Perhaps there's some common thread in all that "subjectivity" that changeability... around which the concept of "justice" swirls.

Nietzsche saw the origins of concepts of "justice" in two contradictory and opposing instincts. You insist that I must hold and value the first order naive roots (hence the need for me to be "objective" whilst you claim the right to hold a different "subjective" view), whilst you give yourself the privledge and latitude of holding the more cynical second order view (Nietzsche, GoM):

“Everything has its price, everything can be paid off”—the oldest and most naïve moral principle of justice, the beginning of all “good nature,” all “fairness,” all “good will,” all “objectivity” on earth. Justice at this first stage is good will among those approximately equal in power to come to terms with each other, to “understand” each other again by compensation—and in relation to those less powerful, to compel them to arrive at some settlement among themselves.

If the power and the self-confidence of a community keeps growing, the criminal law grows constantly milder. Every weakening and profound jeopardizing of the community brings the harsher forms of criminal law to light once more. The “creditor” always became proportionally more human as he became richer. Finally the amount of his wealth itself establishes how much damage he can sustain without suffering from it. It would not be impossible to imagine a society with a consciousness of its own power which allowed itself the most privileged luxury which it can have—letting its criminals go free without punishment. “Why should I really bother about my parasites,” it could then say. “May they live and prosper—for that I am still sufficiently strong!” . . . Justice, which started by stating “Everything is capable of being paid for, everything must be paid off” ends at that point, by covering its eyes and letting the person incapable of payment go free—it ends, as every good thing on earth ends, by doing away with itself. This self-negation of justice—we know what a beautiful name it calls itself—mercy. It goes without saying that mercy remains the privilege of the most powerful man, or even better, his beyond the law.

Now a critical word about a recently published attempt to find the origin of justice in quite a different place—that is, in resentment. But first let me speak a word in the ear of the psychologists, provided that they have any desire to study resentment itself up close for once: this plant grows most beautifully nowadays among anarchists and anti-Semites—in addition, it blooms, as it always has, in hidden places, like the violet, although it has a different fragrance. And since like always has to emerge from like, it is not surprising to see attempts coming forward again from just such circles, as they have already done many times before, to sanctify revenge under the name of justice, as if justice were basically simply a further development of a feeling of being injured, and to bring belated respect to emotional reactions generally, all of them, using the idea of revenge.


One of these two sources seems obviously true. But is it possible that one is "right" and the "other" true? It would appear to be a paradox. A paradox which Plato solved.

Me said...

The crucial point you're missing, FJ, is that people can agree on a definition of justice. However, this agreement does not make it "objective." It's still a subejctive definition, just one that represents a group's concensus on these topics. So, in the US, we have group concensus on what is justice, including group concensus that what was done on Abu Ghraib is wrong.

If the current definition of justice is objectively correct, how could it ever change? Slavery was considered just by many people, including the US legal system, but now it is not. Was it an objective definition?

PS What does all of this have to do with your contradictory love ofn Nietzsche and Christianity?

Farmer John said...

I'll return w/ a little Kant in a couple...

The Analogies of Experience – the subjective foundations of objective reality...

Anonymous said...

"Yes, Bush lied. He knowingly misled his constituents and our former allies regarding the threat from Iraq. Study after study shows that before the war, the case for war was very shaky."

Study after study confirms that Bush did not lie about anything, as the world believed Saddam had WMD long before Bush was in office. Facts are the enemy of liberalism. Say hello to David Icke for me.

Farmer John said...

But if all men can agree, then the subjective becomes objective, because man can be both subject and object...

Here's Kant's argument: Immanuel Kant used the expression “Ding an sich” (the “thing-in-itself”) to designate pure objectivity. The Ding an sich is the object as it is in itself, independent of the features of any subjective perception of it. While Locke was optimistic about scientific knowledge of the true objective (primary) characteristics of things, Kant, influenced by skeptical arguments from David Hume, asserted that we can know nothing regarding the true nature of the Ding an sich, other than that it exists. Scientific knowledge, according to Kant, is systematic knowledge of the nature of things as they appear to us subjects rather than as they are in themselves.

Using Kant’s distinction, intersubjective agreement would seem to be not only the best evidence we can have of objective truth but constitutive of objective truth itself. (This might require a theoretically perfect intersubjective agreement under ideal conditions.) Starting from the assumption that we can have knowledge only of things as they appear in subjective experience, the only plausible sense for the term “objective” would be judgments for which there is universal intersubjective agreement, or just for which there is necessarily universal agreement. If, alternately, we decide to restrict the term “objective” to the Ding an sich, there would be, according to Kant, no objective knowledge.

First, the dual nature of persons as both subjects (having subjective experience) and objects within objective reality relates to one of the paramount theories of ethics in the history of philosophy. Immanuel Kant’s ethics gives a place of central importance to respect for persons. One formulation of his highly influential Categorical Imperative relates to the dual nature of persons. This version demands that one “treat humanity, in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end” (Groundwork, p. 96). One may treat a mere object simply as a means to an end; one may use a piece of wood, for example, simply as a means of repairing a fence. A person, by contrast, is marked by subjectivity, having a subjective point of view, and has a special moral status according to Kant. Every person must be regarded as an end, that is as having intrinsic value. It seems that the inherent value of a person depends essentially on the fact that a person has a subjective conscious life in addition to objective existence.

Farmer John said...

So my question for you is this. Do you believe in "human nature"... and the presence of "universals" within it that might be used to explain "objectively" the nature of "justice".

And can you see the beginnings of an objection to Abu Ghraib in Kant's imperative?

Or in Isaiah Berlin's 195x letter to George Kennan (which Kennan used to predict the downfall of the USSR through the policy of "containment").

Is there such thing as love? Hate? Isn't "justice" a similar feeling? A "universal" feeling?

Me said...

(1) Not all men agree. See what I wrote above about jus cogens and limits of universal concensus.

(2) To recognize the imperfect and subjective nature of these concensus agreements, even universal ones, is imperative to be open to change, to the reperception, reexamination, and reevaluation that must constantly happen and does constantly happen.

If you believe that your perceptions at point T in time were objective, how can you ever change your mind at point T+1? REcognizing the subejctive nature gives you freedom, in the fact that it shows you that these ideas and opinions are merely concensus of men, not divine or unchangeable principles. Otherwise, on what authority would you challenge a commonly held perception or idea?

(3) Again, I am stunned with your choice of philosophers. The categorical imperative would seem to dictate that if you don't want others to impose their morals on you, to tell you what to do and how to live your life, you should refrain from the same, and not tell others how to live their private lives. Yet you persist.

You seem to be so full of doublethink, it's amazing your head doesn't explode.

Farmer John said...

I would contend that any person who is not himself/herself treated as an end unto himself, and instead merely as a means to serve someone else's ends, feels a sense of "injury" that corresponds to a feeling of "injustice"...

Farmer John said...

They may not agree as to what "justice" is... but they know "injustice" when they "experience" it.

Me said...

Is there such thing as love? Hate? Isn't "justice" a similar feeling? A "universal" feeling?

On the one hand, I think it would be extremely solopsistic of me to think that everyone experiences love or justice like i do. Case in point is disagreement among reasonable people whether certain prominent events, such as Abu Ghraib and Saddam Hussein's execution were "justice." These topics have been the source of disagreement for eons -- a claim of universality seems preposterous.

On the other hand, evolutionary biology seems to suggest that feelings like empathy were evolutionary adaptations that were useful in small clan-like societies, but at the same time make us care about people we don't know, like the Abu Ghraib prisoners, and that this is a mis-firing of that instinct, not advantageous from an evolutionary or survival point of view in any way. However, if you don't think the bible has any contraditions, and you believe in it, i must know whether you believe in evolution before we can have a discussion about evolutionary biology.

Anonymous said...

If morality is subjective, then all things are justified.

Me said...

Anonymous, a modern-day dostoyevsky. yes, it is subjective. most people do things that they think are moral and/or justified. Few people go around doing things that they thing are wrong.

If morality is not subjective, then what is the obejctively correct set of morals?

Me said...

anonymous, a vertiable modern-day dostoyevsky.

Farmer John said...

2) Not all men can express what they feel. That does not mean that they do not feel.

3) Perfect justice is impossible. People sometimes need to be used as "ends" to serve the greater society (ie an Army consription/draft. Society/government frequently uses subjects as objects. They do so "forcibly"... or through threat of force.

Anonymous said...

"If morality is not subjective, then what is the obejctively correct set of morals?"

That is a question that many attempt to answer, but the point is that if morality does not have an objective basis, than morality either does not exist (moral nihilism) or morality is subjective. However, nobody lives as if morality is subjective, because if this were the case anything could be justified.

Farmer John said...

War is immoral and unjust. Abu Ghraib was unjust. We all abhor what happened.

But we declared & Congress and the UN sanctioned a period of injustice.

We firebombed German cities. We nuked Japan. But it was war. And it is sometimes necessary to be "wise" and alive instead of "just" and dead.

Farmer John said...

There are times when "morality gets suspended". And during those times, people who wring their hands over the immorality of it all are NOT helping anyone. They end up "prolonging" the conflict becuase this hand-wringing gives our enemies "hope". During war, you must CRUSH your enemies hopes. Or the war will never end.

Farmer John said...

Wisdom or Justice...

It's what Isaiah Berlin termed "the unavoidability of conflicting ends" or, alternatively, the "incommensurability" of values. He once called this "the only truth which I have ever found out for myself... Some of the Great Goods cannot live together.... We are doomed to choose, and every choice may entail an irreparable loss." In short, it's what Michael Ignatieff summarized as "the tragic nature of choice".

Farmer John said...

Justice involves "right opinion"...

Wisdom, "true opinion"

Farmer John said...

One has to do with what "should be", and another with what "is". Like Nietzsche and the Bible.

Farmer John said...

Plato, "Republic"

Must not injustice be a strife which arises among the three principles--a meddlesomeness, and interference, and rising up of a part of the soul against the whole, an assertion of unlawful authority, which is made by a rebellious subject against a true prince, of whom he is the natural vassal,-- what is all this confusion and delusion but injustice, and intemperance and cowardice and ignorance, and every form of vice?
----------

Well then, tell me, I said, whether I am right or not: You remember the original principle which we were always laying down at the foundation of the State, that one man should practise one thing only, the thing to which his nature was best adapted;--now justice is this principle or a part of it.

Yes, we often said that one man should do one thing only.

Further, we affirmed that justice was doing one's own business, and not being a busybody; we said so again and again, and many others have said the same to us.

Yes, we said so.

Then to do one's own business in a certain way may be assumed to be justice. Can you tell me whence I derive this inference?

I cannot, but I should like to be told.

Because I think that this is the only virtue which remains in the State when the other virtues of temperance and courage and wisdom are abstracted; and, that this is the ultimate cause and condition of the existence of all of them, and while remaining in them is also their preservative; and we were saying that if the three were discovered by us, justice would be the fourth or remaining one.

That follows of necessity.

Farmer John said...

Nietzsche "Zarathustra" conclusion:

O ye higher men, your distress was it that the old soothsayer foretold to me yester-morn,—

Unto your distress did he want to seduce and tempt me: 'O Zarathustra,' said he to me, 'I come to seduce thee to thy last sin.'

To my last sin?" cried Zarathustra, and laughed angrily at his own words: "what hath been reserved for me as my last sin?"

— And once more Zarathustra became absorbed in himself, and sat down again on the big stone and meditated. Suddenly he sprang up,—

"Fellow-suffering! Fellow-suffering with the higher men!" he cried out, and his countenance changed into brass. "Well! That—hath had its time!

My suffering and my fellow-suffering—what matter about them! Do I then strive after happiness? I strive after my work!

Well! The lion hath come, my children are nigh, Zarathustra hath grown ripe, mine hour hath come:—

This is my morning, my day beginneth: arise now, arise, thou great noontide!"—

Thus spake Zarathustra and left his cave, glowing and strong, like a morning sun coming out of gloomy mountains.

THE END

Farmer John said...

Socrates 1st principle - It's better to suffer an injustice, than to commit one.

When asked to serve in Athen's legislative assembly, Socrates refused to "collect the votes"...it would have violated his first principle.

Farmer John said...

Virtue cannot be taught. It can only be learned. (Plato, "Meno")

Me said...

War is immoral and unjust. Abu Ghraib was unjust. We all abhor what happened.

But we declared & Congress and the UN sanctioned a period of injustice.

We firebombed German cities. We nuked Japan. But it was war. And it is sometimes necessary to be "wise" and alive instead of "just" and dead.


All I can tell you is that Robert McNamara famously said that if the US had lost WWII, he and his colleagues did things that were enough to get them indicted for war crimes. I think bombing Dresden and Nagasaki were war crimes, and it's a travesty that no one was punished for it. But that is another can of worms.

Still, i don't see how this is relevant.

Me said...

Look, FJ, you can quote all the philosophers you want. First of all, some of them stand completely opposed to your own philosophies and beliefs, so i find your quoting them perplexing. Secondly, they are just people, like you and me, not divinely inspired truth-tellers. Just quoting them, without constructing much of an argument is pointless. You have yet to respond to most of my points.

Farmer John said...

...and you have yet to respond to a single one of mine. You seem to feel it is your role to ask, and never answer a question. But I tire of answering questions from one who will not listen, and will not answer questions posed to him.

No, virtue cannot be taught.

And philosophers are not people like you. They are people who think and who have thought.

And that is why a thousand years from now they will still be remembered, and no one will know your name or care about anything you did.

Farmer John said...

There are very few philosophers whose philosophies stand "completely" opposed to my beliefs. In most cases, the philosophies are simply "expressed" either differently, or incompletely. That is why the few "systemic" philosophers should always be studied first. Plato. Aristotle. Then Nietzsche or Kant. Most simply build additions onto the same house... adding a "wing" or two. Unless you believe that "sciences" web is inconsistent too?

Have you ever read Swift? "Battle of the Books"

Things were at this crisis when a material accident fell out. For upon the highest corner of a large window, there dwelt a certain spider, swollen up to the first magnitude by the destruction of infinite numbers of flies, whose spoils lay scattered before the gates of his palace, like human bones before the cave of some giant. The avenues to his castle were guarded with turnpikes and palisadoes, all after the modern way of fortification. After you had passed several courts you came to the centre, wherein you might behold the constable himself in his own lodgings, which had windows fronting to each avenue, and ports to sally out upon all occasions of prey or defence. In this mansion he had for some time dwelt in peace and plenty, without danger to his person by swallows from above, or to his palace by brooms from below; when it was the pleasure of fortune to conduct thither a wandering bee, to whose curiosity a broken pane in the glass had discovered itself, and in he went, where, expatiating a while, he at last happened to alight upon one of the outward walls of the spider’s citadel; which, yielding to the unequal weight, sunk down to the very foundation. Thrice he endeavoured to force his passage, and thrice the centre shook. The spider within, feeling the terrible convulsion, supposed at first that nature was approaching to her final dissolution, or else that Beelzebub, with all his legions, was come to revenge the death of many thousands of his subjects whom his enemy had slain and devoured. However, he at length valiantly resolved to issue forth and meet his fate. Meanwhile the bee had acquitted himself of his toils, and, posted securely at some distance, was employed in cleansing his wings, and disengaging them from the ragged remnants of the cobweb. By this time the spider was adventured out, when, beholding the chasms, the ruins, and dilapidations of his fortress, he was very near at his wit’s end; he stormed and swore like a madman, and swelled till he was ready to burst. At length, casting his eye upon the bee, and wisely gathering causes from events (for they know each other by sight), “A plague split you,” said he; “is it you, with a vengeance, that have made this litter here; could not you look before you, and be d-d? Do you think I have nothing else to do (in the devil’s name) but to mend and repair after you?” “Good words, friend,” said the bee, having now pruned himself, and being disposed to droll; “I’ll give you my hand and word to come near your kennel no more; I was never in such a confounded pickle since I was born.” “Sirrah,” replied the spider, “if it were not for breaking an old custom in our family, never to stir abroad against an enemy, I should come and teach you better manners.” “I pray have patience,” said the bee, “or you’ll spend your substance, and, for aught I see, you may stand in need of it all, towards the repair of your house.” “Rogue, rogue,” replied the spider, “yet methinks you should have more respect to a person whom all the world allows to be so much your betters.” “By my troth,” said the bee, “the comparison will amount to a very good jest, and you will do me a favour to let me know the reasons that all the world is pleased to use in so hopeful a dispute.” At this the spider, having swelled himself into the size and posture of a disputant, began his argument in the true spirit of controversy, with resolution to be heartily scurrilous and angry, to urge on his own reasons without the least regard to the answers or objections of his opposite, and fully predetermined in his mind against all conviction.

“Not to disparage myself,” said he, “by the comparison with such a rascal, what art thou but a vagabond without house or home, without stock or inheritance? born to no possession of your own, but a pair of wings and a drone-pipe. Your livelihood is a universal plunder upon nature; a freebooter over fields and gardens; and, for the sake of stealing, will rob a nettle as easily as a violet. Whereas I am a domestic animal, furnished with a native stock within myself. This large castle (to show my improvements in the mathematics) is all built with my own hands, and the materials extracted altogether out of my own person.”

“I am glad,” answered the bee, “to hear you grant at least that I am come honestly by my wings and my voice; for then, it seems, I am obliged to Heaven alone for my flights and my music; and Providence would never have bestowed on me two such gifts without designing them for the noblest ends. I visit, indeed, all the flowers and blossoms of the field and garden, but whatever I collect thence enriches myself without the least injury to their beauty, their smell, or their taste. Now, for you and your skill in architecture and other mathematics, I have little to say: in that building of yours there might, for aught I know, have been labour and method enough; but, by woeful experience for us both, it is too plain the materials are naught; and I hope you will henceforth take warning, and consider duration and matter, as well as method and art. You boast, indeed, of being obliged to no other creature, but of drawing and spinning out all from yourself; that is to say, if we may judge of the liquor in the vessel by what issues out, you possess a good plentiful store of dirt and poison in your breast; and, though I would by no means lesson or disparage your genuine stock of either, yet I doubt you are somewhat obliged, for an increase of both, to a little foreign assistance. Your inherent portion of dirt does not fall of acquisitions, by sweepings exhaled from below; and one insect furnishes you with a share of poison to destroy another. So that, in short, the question comes all to this: whether is the nobler being of the two, that which, by a lazy contemplation of four inches round, by an overweening pride, feeding, and engendering on itself, turns all into excrement and venom, producing nothing at all but flybane and a cobweb; or that which, by a universal range, with long search, much study, true judgment, and distinction of things, brings home honey and wax.”

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

"All men of Crete are liars." - Epimenides (of Crete)

Me said...

And philosophers are not people like you. They are people who think and who have thought.

And that is why a thousand years from now they will still be remembered, and no one will know your name or care about anything you did.


FJ, i'm pretty sure no one will know your name or care about anything you did 1000 years from now. I have no delusions of grandeur.

There's no need for ad hominem -- if you want to talk about who "hasn't thought," I'd advise you to return to what started this whole discussion -- that you claim to espouse Nietzsche's philosophy and a literalist Christian. I wanted to talk about evolutionary biology, you didn't respond about whether you believe in evolution.

I usually try not to impute thoughts to famous dead people, but I think Jesus would be very put off by your love of Friedrich "God is Dead" Nietzsche, and I think Nietzsche would find it pretty hilarious that you claim to be very Christian and yet love his philosophies too, even claiming that Nietzsche's philosophy was done out of a "love of Christianity." Talk about not having thought.

Farmer John said...

When have I ever claimed to be a Christian?

I believe in evolution.

All you do is build strawmen and impute thoughts and motives to others based upon ??? That I'm a conservative?

I believe there are oodles and oodles of consistent truth in the Bible. I believe there are oodles and oodles of consistent truth in Nietzsche as well.

You say you usually don't try and impute thoughts to famous dead people, but you consistently and erroneously impute them to me. Why is that?

Farmer John said...

In the biblical story of Genesis stood two trees. One tree was a tree of life. One tree was a tree of knowledge of good and evil. G_d instructed the occupants not to eat of one of those tree's. They did, and were subsequently expelled.

Do you know what virtue is, yet?

Farmer John said...

What was it in Eve's nature that compelled her to eat of that fruit?

Do you ever really think? Or are these just silly fictional stories?

Farmer John said...

...and if they were treated as just silly fictional stories, then what would be the sense of thinking about them at all?

Wouldn't Aesop's fables and Grimm's Fairy Tales suffice?

Or Holloween 13, Jason Returns.

Farmer John said...

Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods. --Einstein

Farmer John said...

Nietzsche, Zarathustra

Woe unto all loving ones who have not an elevation which is above their pity!
Thus spake the devil unto me, once on a time: "Even God hath his hell: it is his love for man."
And lately, did I hear him say these words: "God is dead: of his pity for man hath God died."-
So be ye warned against pity: from thence there yet cometh unto men a heavy cloud! Verily, I understand weather-signs!
But attend also to this word: All great love is above all its pity: for it seeketh- to create what is loved!
"Myself do I offer unto my love, and my neighbour as myself"- such is the language of all creators.
All creators, however, are hard.-

Farmer John said...

THE MADMAN----Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly: "I seek God! I seek God!"---As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. Has he got lost? asked one. Did he lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? emigrated?---Thus they yelled and laughed.
The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. "Whither is God?" he cried; "I will tell you. We have killed him---you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.

"How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us---for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto."

Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they, too, were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke into pieces and went out. "I have come too early," he said then; "my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than most distant stars---and yet they have done it themselves.

It has been related further that on the same day the madman forced his way into several churches and there struck up his requiem aeternam deo. Led out and called to account, he is said always to have replied nothing but: "What after all are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchers of God?"

D.Daddio Al-Ozarka said...

"...and just throwing around words idiotically..." Me

Me, you're the expert...you should know of what you speak, dear.

Farmer John said...

Notice any resemblence?

Emerson - Address to the Harvard Divinity School...

The second defect of the traditionary and limited way of using the mind of Christ is a consequence of the first; this, namely; that the Moral Nature, that Law of laws, whose revelations introduce greatness, — yea, God himself, into the open soul, is not explored as the fountain of the established teaching in society. Men have come to speak of the revelation as somewhat long ago given and done, as if God were dead. The injury to faith throttles the preacher; and the goodliest of institutions becomes an uncertain and inarticulate voice.

---

And now let us do what we can to rekindle the smouldering, nigh quenched fire on the altar. The evils of the church that now is are manifest. The question returns, What shall we do? I confess, all attempts to project and establish a Cultus with new rites and forms, seem to me vain. Faith makes us, and not we it, and faith makes its own forms. All attempts to contrive a system are as cold as the new worship introduced by the French to the goddess of Reason, — to-day, pasteboard and fillagree, and ending to-morrow in madness and murder. Rather let the breath of new life be breathed by you through the forms already existing. For, if once you are alive, you shall find they shall become plastic and new. The remedy to their deformity is, first, soul, and second, soul, and evermore, soul. A whole popedom of forms, one pulsation of virtue can uplift and vivify. Two inestimable advantages Christianity has given us; first; the Sabbath, the jubilee of the whole world; whose light dawns welcome alike into the closet of the philosopher, into the garret of toil, and into prison cells, and everywhere suggests, even to the vile, the dignity of spiritual being. Let it stand forevermore, a temple, which new love, new faith, new sight shall restore to more than its first splendor to mankind. And secondly, the institution of preaching, — the speech of man to men, — essentially the most flexible of all organs, of all forms. What hinders that now, everywhere, in pulpits, in lecture-rooms, in houses, in fields, wherever the invitation of men or your own occasions lead you, you speak the very truth, as your life and conscience teach it, and cheer the waiting, fainting hearts of men with new hope and new revelation?

Nietzsche was worried about the death of G_d because he knew the path of reason and scientific enquiry lead to moral nihilism. Nietzsche desired to provide mankind with a warning, AND a bridge to move us "beyond" that nihilism...."beyond Good and Evil", but not beyond good and bad.

Me said...

"There are no contradictions in the Bible." - Farmer John

"The Word of G_d is written on my heart. It isn't in the Bible at all." -Farmer John

https://www2.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=37900047&postID=808213025680243502

See, if you stay consistent, you won't get caught like this.

Farmer John said...

Nietzsche was a big Emerson fan. And philosophy is a conversation, a dialogue that "spans the ages".

You won't find much philosophy in a newspaper (see the feet)

Farmer John said...

and if you were more observant, you'd notice the capitalizations...

Farmer John said...

...and the distinction between something divine, and something Divine.

Me said...

What was it in Eve's nature that compelled her to eat of that fruit?

Do you ever really think? Or are these just silly fictional stories?


Oh do tell. This isn't a silly fictitious story written by a patriarchal society, it is the dog-gone truth. Please, inform us, judge of objective truth and knowledge, what defect it was in Eve's nature that caused her to disobey the Lord almighty.

Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods. --Einstein

Indeed. A little humility and realization of one's own mediocrity and limitations never hurt anyone. So, FJ, please take this lesson and use it: stop telling people you knwo "the truth" about homosexuality, AIDS, marriage, child-rearing, any better than someone else might know it.

...and if they were treated as just silly fictional stories, then what would be the sense of thinking about them at all?

Wouldn't Aesop's fables and Grimm's Fairy Tales suffice?


They are works of literature, expressions of humanity and its fears and aspirations, thought processes throughout the ages. They are of great anthropoligical and literary value. No doubt. They are the foundations upon which previouss thinkers have built their theories. It is imperative to study them to understand the development of western thought and civilization for the last 1500.

However, none of this automatically makes them divine, or is any proof thereof. And this is not to the exclusion of other works that also are imperative to study to understand western thought.

Farmer John said...

I believe in G_d. So do Christians. So do Jews. So do Deists. Are Jews, Christians?

You're so desperate to find a micro verbal inconsistency, that you miss the whole macro argument.

Go back to your blog, me. You're not a truth seeker. You think you know something. Then claim to not know anything. You want to teach us that, but we've already admitted to simply having "faith" and not "knowledge". So what are you trying to prove?

Me said...

Nietzsche desired to provide mankind with a warning, AND a bridge to move us "beyond" that nihilism...."beyond Good and Evil", but not beyond good and bad.

But beyond god. I have my own morality, without a god, dontchaknow.

Now, if the word of god is written on your heart as you allege, then I don't see how you can love Nietzsche so much. He was areligious, anti-religious, he despised religion and faith, said something along the lines of, "walking through an asylum shows that faith proves nothing."

Farmer John said...

You must me thinking of the Koran, me. You won't find Christians killing those of other faiths that touch their book.

And now you claim that nothing can be known again. I give you scientific studies proving my points, and you provide nothing to rebut them.

Go away me. This sandbox is way too big for you.

Me said...

Can't deal with a dissenting opinion, FJ? "Go back to your blog?" Go back to YOUR blog, FJ, this isn't your blog anymore than it is mine.

I'm not really trying to prove anything, just talking. I don't know what you're trying to prove, but I think that there's a lot of things just on this thread that you need to think about so as to avoid saying things like "Nietzsche actually loved Christianity." Yeah, and the moon is made of green cheese.

At least you believe in evolution. That means you're not completely off the charts. But I must say your views on gays and AIDS are quite disturbing, and for someone who is as educated as you are, and you are quite intelligent, you can at least put together a cogest argument, and you're well-read, it's surprising that (1) you'd have such an arrogance about you, and (2) that you haven't moved beyond your strange ideas about sexuality, homosexuality, and gender in general. Maybe it has something to do with your upbringing, i don't know. But it doesn't really fit.

Me said...

I give you scientific studies proving my points, and you provide nothing to rebut them.

you call what you presented "scientific"? then honestly, i doubt you understand what that word means. A simplistic argument cobbled together out of other statistics without any peer review or the classic form of a paper, discussing other possibilities and weaknesses in the proposed theory, discussing the control, and other possible explanations -- not scientific, sorry.

Farmer John said...

Your morality is to do whatever the 'h you feel like doing, whenever you feel like doin' it.

Great morality, that. It shows no respect for others. None.

Evidence for Nietzsche's hatred of G_d?... you state it in the absense of any presented supporting evidence.

Nietzsche found flaws in logic, reason and science, proving them to be "false idols" too. Does that mean he hated them? Does that mean he refused to employ them in his arguments?

Prove Nietzsche "hated" Christianity. Evidence to support your contention so far....zero.

Farmer John said...

Citations of peer reviewed papers and studies is not nothing, me. And once the study has been peer reviewed, why should I have to peer review every citation of that study.

Try again.

Farmer John said...

Perhaps my positions are as they are becuase I actually have a background in....


SCIENCE.

Farmer John said...

How much Nietzsche have you read, me? You're way out of your pond.

Stick to legal and rhetorical arguments. Go with your strengths.

Farmer John said...

Nietzsche "Gay Science"

115
The Four Errors. Man has been reared by his errors: firstly, he saw himself always imperfect; secondly, he attributed to himself imaginary qualities; thirdly, he felt himself in a false position in relation to the animals and nature; fourthly, he always devised new tables of values, and accepted them for a time as eternal and unconditioned, so that at one time this, and at another time that human impulse or state stood first, and was ennobled in consequence. When one has deducted the effect of these four errors, one has also deducted humanity, humaneness, and "human dignity."

Farmer John said...

What Nietzsche didn't like about faith was that it was being taught at the time as "history", and not as the living Word of G_d.

Christianity had "downplayed" the role and nature of the Soul and its' meaning in the everyday lives of believers. In that respect, the priests had killed G_d for modern man.

Farmer John said...

The death of G_d was followed by a century of death and destruction greater than all that had gone before it... the Twentieth Century.

The source of me's faith and morality.

Farmer John said...

They fill their hearts with God's law, so they will never slip from his path. - Psalms 37:31

I take joy in doing your will, my God, for your law is written on my heart." - Psalms 40:8

Create in me a clean heart, O God. Renew a right spirit within me. - Psalms 51:10

Farmer John said...

Facts in evidence to support dissenting "rhetorical" opinions...

zero

Me said...

Evidence that Nizetzsche hated Christianity, I am reposting exactly what I wrote yesterday. Maybe you need to pay closer attention:

Though I think your characterization of Nietzsche's ideas regarding Christianity is completely idiotic, to be frank.

As evidence, I present to you the whole text of "The Antichrist." Here are some choice qoutes, though.

"In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point."
- Friedrich Nietzsche, The Antichrist, section 16

"What follows, then? That one had better put on gloves before reading the New Testament. The presence of so much filth makes it very advisable." - Section 46

"I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct for revenge for which no expedient is sufficiently poisonous, secret, subterranean, petty — I call it the one immortal blemish of mankind. "
- Sec. 62

Me said...

The "study" that you sent me,
http://traditionalvalues.org/urban/one-a.php

I mean, come on, just look at the name of the website and the name of the organization. You're kidding me with calling this "Science," right?

Now, here's a website from US Davis, stating that:

"Reflecting the results of these and other studies, the mainstream view among researchers and professionals who work in the area of child sexual abuse is that homosexual and bisexual men do not pose any special threat to children. "

Complete with a bibliography and referenes to a variety of studies, a discussion of terminology.

Now, who are you going to believe? I'm gonna have to side with UC Davis on this one. I don't know about you.

Me said...

Your morality is to do whatever the 'h you feel like doing, whenever you feel like doin' it.

Great morality, that. It shows no respect for others. None.


Great assumption about me, FJ. Shows your critical thinking abilities. Wow. *eye roll*

As for your alleged background in science, i'm dying to know what science that was. Christian Science? Scientology maybe?

Finally, you write:
The death of G_d was followed by a century of death and destruction greater than all that had gone before it... the Twentieth Century.

The source of me's faith and morality.


(1) Surely you're not saying that the advances in technology had nothing to do with the magnitude of death and destruction.
(2) Surely you're not saying that the Plague killed fewer people, as a percetange of the population of Europe than WW1 and WW2.
(3) Surely you're not saying that religion had nothing to do with the conflicts of the 20th century.
(4) Surely you're not saying that the 30 Years War, for example, is to be disregarded. It was the bloodiest war in Europe until WW1 and it was fought about... religion!

Farmer John said...

Sils-Maria, July 23, 1881: Nietzsche Postcard to Franz Overbeck

[...] As far as Christianity is concerned, I hope you will believe this much: in my heart I have never held it in contempt and, ever since childhood, have often struggled with myself on behalf of its ideals. In the end, to be sure, the result has always been the sheerest impossibility. — [....]

Naumburg, ca. June 5, 1882: Nietzsche Letter to Franz Overbeck

My dear Friend,

By the bye, I am possessed of a fatalistic "trust in the Lord"—I call it amor fati—so much so that I'd put my head in a lion's mouth, not to mention —


Will Durant - Historian/Author of "The Story of Philosophy"

Nevertheless, his father was a minister; a long line of clergymen lay behind each of his parents; and he himself remained a preacher to the end. He attacked Christianity because there was so much of its moral spirit in him.... With perhaps one disastrous exception, Nietzsche remained pious and Puritan, chaste as a statue, to the last: therefore his assault on Puritanism and piety. How he longed to be a sinner, this incorrigible saint!

- The Story of Philosophy; Durant, p. 402-3

Me said...

FJ, this does not prove anything...

In the first letter, what exactly does he mean when he says "In the end, to be sure, the result has always been the sheerest impossibility."

In the second letter, you don't even provide the whole sentence.

And in the 3rd excerpt, I never said that Nietzsche was not a moral person, all I said was that he hated Christianity. Having a moral spirit has nothing to do with whether he was a Christian or not. Further, his lineage also has nothing to do with his own beliefs.

Also, please note that "The Anti-Christ" was written in 1888, 6-7 years after these letters you cite. His views obviously progressed.

Farmer John said...

The statistical sources and studies cited are very reputable. Should you care and try and dispute them or the methods the authors used, please tell me what you object to.

Apparently UC Davis speaks for the "mainstream" in the same way global warming UCS members claim to represent the "mainstream" as well (btw - where's the link?). How did they determine what the "mainstream" consisted of, anyway? A scientific poll? study? Or show of hands at a UCS or APA meeting?

Farmer John said...

The "AntiChrist" states in its' title that it is a polemic. You do know what a polemic is, don't you. Kaufmann translated it as "an attempt at a critique of Christianity".

Me said...

Sure, the studies cited may be reputable, but the conclusions the author makes out of these studies are not exactly correct. He cobbles together statistics from different studies (a big no-no). REad this person's argument, it's not a scientific argument, it's just simplistic misuse of statistics, some of which are not even correct statistics (3% vs. 10%). Honestly, this is not a reputable source. I can't even believe you're trying to argue that it is.

Facts have a well-documented liberal bias.

Farmer John said...

When Christian priests start leading men into battle, and not kings and secular presidents, then well have to start worrying about "Christianity" as a warrior faith.

And please, Islam IS spread by the sword. I'm not defending it.

Farmer John said...

Even at 10% homosexuals would be over-represented statistically among paedophiles.

You are numerate, in addition to being literate, aren't you me?

Me said...

my colleagues in class just had a really good laugh about that webpage you sent as a "scientific study." LOL.

Me said...

Oh no, FJ, i'm a woman, how could I possibly do well with numbers?

Which science was your alleged "scientific background" in again?

Farmer John said...

You represented a webpage as a scientific study? You are a silly person, aren't you. And I wouldn't expect future lawyers to be able to do much with numbers other than add billable hours...

And I doubt you could ID a scientific argument if it bit you.

And I'm an engineer BS/MS. Perhaps I'll throw in a couple of thermo or fluid dynamics questions for you to answer later. LOL!

Farmer John said...

Perhaps this is why you can't understand Nietzsche's Anti-Christ

Preface

This book belongs to the very few. Perhaps not one of them is even living yet. Maybe they will be the readers who understand my Zarathustra: how could I mistake myself for one of those for whom there are ears even now? Only the day after tomorrow belongs to me. Some are born posthumously.

The conditions under which I am understood, and then of necessity—I know them only too well. One must be honest in matters of the spirit to the point of hardness before one can even endure my seriousness and my passion. One must be skilled in living on mountains—seeing the wretched ephemeral babble of politics and national self-seeking beneath oneself. One must have become indifferent; one must never ask if the truth is useful or if it may prove our undoing. The predilection of strength for questions for which no one today has the courage; the courage for the forbidden; the predestination to the labyrinth. An experience of seven solitudes. New ears for new music. New eyes for what is most distant. A new conscience for truths that have so far remained mute. And the will to the economy of the great style: keeping our strength, our enthusiasm in harness. Reverence for oneself; love of oneself; unconditional freedom before oneself.

Well then! Such men alone are my readers, my right readers, my predestined readers: what matter the rest? The rest—that is merely mankind. One must be above mankind in strength, in loftiness of soul—in contempt.

Farmer John said...

Of course, as a hedonist you're probably more familiar w/Marcuse ('68 Political Preface to "Eros & Civilization")

It was the thesis of Eros and Civilization, more fully developed in my One-Dimensional Man, that man could avoid the fate of a Welfare-Through-Warfare State only by achieving a new starting point where he could reconstruct the productive apparatus without that "inner-worldly asceticism" which provided the mental basis for domination and exploration. This image of man was the determinate negation of Nietzsche’s superman: man intelligent enough and healthy enough to dispense with all heros and heroic virtues, man without the impulse to live dangerously, to meet the challenge; man with the good conscience to make life an end-in-itself, to live in joy a life without fear. "Polymorphous sexuality" was the term which I used to indicate that the new direction of progress would depend completely on the opportunity to activate repressed or arrested organic, biological needs: to make the human body an instrument of pleasure rather than labor. The old formula, the development of prevailing needs and faculties, seemed to be inadequate; the emergence of new, qualitatively different needs and faculties seemed to be the prerequisite, the content of liberation.

Me said...

I don't think you're one of Nietzsche's few either. You believe in god, you are in the military, you don't think the bible has contradictions, you have some problems with recognizing scientific studies and assertions.

So you're an Engineer BS/MS. Perhaps this explains your supreme confusion as to the humanities. Did you learn all this by yourself with no guidance or input from others? Like teachers or parents? That might explain alot.

No, FJ, how i could I do math?1 i'm an idiot lawyer who can't even add up billables hours straight. And a woman to boot. Why, it's amazing I can even understand page numbers.

Farmer John said...

So please, continue to remove the bars repression and conscience from man's cage. It's been done before. Many times before. It may be many things... freedom, liberation, etc. But it is NOT progress.

Farmer John said...

I figured as much. Good of you to admit your incompetencies.

Me said...

Ps My morality is not "do whatever I want, whenever i want, etc." Not at all. My morality is based on the idea that human beings are equal, have rights simply by being born. It's based primarily on empathy, and the categorical imperative.

As in, if i were wrongly imprisoned, would I want to be stacked in naked pyramids? No. Would i want to be stereotyped based on my religion or race or gender? No. Would I want to be imprisoned indefinitely with no trial or legal recourse or possibility of appeal? No. Tortured by the CIA? No. Told how to live my private life, who i should marry, who i should love? No.

So i try not to do those things to other people. It's really quite simple. A little bit solopsistic, I admit, but then, there's no escaping outside of myself, simply impossible. So it's the best i can do.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 599   Newer› Newest»