Judge: Abu Gharib images and videos need to be released

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea..._id=1001218842

Quote:

---

NEW YORK A federal judge ruled today that graphic pictures of detainee abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison must be released over government claims that they could damage America's image. Last year a Republican senator conceded that they contained scenes of "rape and murder" and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said they included acts that were "blatantly sadistic."

U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein ordered the release of certain pictures in a 50-page decision that said terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan have proven they "do not need pretexts for their barbarism."

The ACLU has sought the release of 87 photographs and four videotapes taken at the prison as part of an October 2003 lawsuit demanding information on the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody and the transfer of prisoners to countries known to use torture.

The judge said: "Our nation does not surrender to blackmail, and fear of blackmail is not a legally sufficient argument to prevent us from performing a statutory command. Indeed, the freedoms that we champion are as important to our success in Iraq and Afghanistan as the guns and missiles with which our troops are armed."

What is shown on the 87 photographs and four videos from Abu Ghraib prison that the Pentagon has blocked from release? One clue: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told Congress last year, after viewing a large cache of unreleased images, "I mean, I looked at them last night, and they're hard to believe." They show acts "that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhumane," he added.

A Republican Senator suggested the same day they contained scenes of "rape and murder." Rumsfeld then commented, "If these are released to the public, obviously it's going to make matters worse."

The photos were among thousands turned over by the key "whistleblower" in the scandal, Specialist Joseph M. Darby. Just a few that were released to the press sparked the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal last year, and the video images are said to be even more shocking.

One Pentagon lawyer has argued that they should not be released because they would only add to the humiliation of the prisoners. But the ACLU has said the faces of the victims can easily be "redacted."

To get a sense of what may be shown in these images, one has to go back to press reports from when the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal was still front page news.

This is how CNN reported it on May 8, 2004, in a typical account that day:

"U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld revealed Friday that videos and 'a lot more pictures' exist of the abuse of Iraqis held at Abu Ghraib prison.

"'If these are released to the public, obviously it's going to make matters worse,' Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee. 'I mean, I looked at them last night, and they're hard to believe.'

"The embattled defense secretary fielded sharp and skeptical questions from lawmakers as he testified about the growing prisoner abuse scandal. A military report about that abuse describes detainees being threatened, sodomized with a chemical light and forced into sexually humiliating poses.

"Charges have been brought against seven service members, and investigations into events at the prison continue.

"Military investigators have looked into -- or are continuing to investigate -- 35 cases of alleged abuse or deaths of prisoners in detention facilities in the Central Command theater, according to Army Secretary Les Brownlee. Two of those cases were deemed homicides, he said.

"'The American public needs to understand we're talking about rape and murder here. We're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience,' Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told reporters after Rumsfeld testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee. 'We're talking about rape and murder -- and some very serious charges.'

"A report by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba on the abuse at the prison outside Baghdad says videotapes and photographs show naked detainees, and that groups of men were forced to masturbate while being photographed and videotaped. Taguba also found evidence of a 'male MP guard having sex with a female detainee.'

"Rumsfeld told Congress the unrevealed photos and videos contain acts 'that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhuman.'"

The military later screened some of the images for lawmakers, who said they showed, among other things, attack dogs snarling at cowed prisoners, Iraqi women forced to expose their breasts, and naked prisoners forced to have sex with each other.

In the same period, reporter Seymour Hersh, who helped uncover the scandal, said in a speech before an ACLU convention: "Some of the worse that happened that you don't know about, ok? Videos, there are women there. Some of you may have read they were passing letters, communications out to their men ... . The women were passing messages saying 'Please come and kill me, because of what's happened.'

"Basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys/children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. The worst about all of them is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror it's going to come out."

---

Errm...what happened with the whole Geneva Convention? Isn't there an article against this? What need is there to release those images to the public? We all know what went on inside the prision, it has been described in the article, and I don't see the necessity of this. How would the prisioners feel? Knowing images of you getting raped have been released worlwide to show in the front pages of sensationalistic press.

Meh, the Geneva Convention can impale itself. The U.S. is the only country that even TRIES to follow that outdated POS. These people are terrorists and don't have the rights of American citizens.

Quote:

---

These people are terrorists and don't have the rights of American citizens.

---

Oh god... They haven't even been tried. NONE of these people are convicted terrorists, and therefore you shouldn't be calling them terrorists. You are of the most despicable mindsets of all Americans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ?????

Meh, the Geneva Convention can impale itself. The U.S. is the only country that even TRIES to follow that outdated POS.

---

Um, what? Pretty much all of western Europe, at least, abides by it. As for the rest of your post, I agree with nik0tine.

I'm of two minds about this. On one hand it probably will raise anti-American sentiment. (Incidentally, this issue points to a clear contradiction in the radical right's thinking. They have been arguing this entire time that our actions in Iraq will not contribute to terrorism, but they oppose the release of these images on the grounds that it will incite terrorism). On the other hand, a nation that claims to be the bastion of freedom and moral responsibility, and yet allows images like this from its military to go unpublished, is in reality a bastion of hypocrisy. In any case, the judge was just interpreting the law, and the law clearly says that pictures like this need to be published.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadow Nexus

Errm...what happened with the whole Geneva Convention? Isn't there an article against this? What need is there to release those images to the public? We all know what went on inside the prision, it has been described in the article, and I don't see the necessity of this. How would the prisioners feel? Knowing images of you getting raped have been released worlwide to show in the front pages of sensationalistic press.

---

Proof. Without it, a lot of people will find it difficult to believe exactly what's going on therein. And yes, it'll be sensationalist, which means something may actually be done. Most people only act when they're riled up, and people only get riled up with difficulty and for short times.

Anyways, trial and execution sounds like the order of the day for a certain prison's staff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Man

Pretty much all of western Europe, at least, abides by it.

---

You know what I mean. Terrorists and other enemies don't follow the Geneva Convention's rules, so why should we? And don't spout some stuff about "because we'd be sinking to their level if we didn't." That's bull. You know it, I know it, and every reasoning being in the universe knows it. Every organism in the universe does everything, and I mean everything, in their own self-interest; we have no "higher calling." We're merely trying to stamp out a threat to our way of life. This we have done, with a good deal of success.

My mindset is that as long as I can live my life unimpeded, I really don't care one whit what happens to those people or what our military does to achieve that end. Their lives don't affect me and never will. Torture them, rape them, do weird-ass psychic experiments on them, make them watch endless episodes of Friends for all I care. Just get them out of society and off of my news.

Incidentally, I'm all for the Iraq war, both to get rid of Saddam's potential threat and for the oil profits. I'm a firm supporter of imperialism and big business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ?????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Man

Pretty much all of western Europe, at least, abides by it.

---

You know what I mean. Terrorists and other enemies don't follow the Geneva Convention's rules, so why should we? And don't spout some stuff about "because we'd be sinking to their level if we didn't." That's bull. You know it, I know it, and every reasoning being in the universe knows it. Every organism in the universe does everything, and I mean everything, in their own self-interest; we have no "higher calling." We're merely trying to stamp out a threat to our way of life. This we have done, with a good deal of success.

---

wow, you really do watch too much Fox News.

The whole point that we don't follow the Geneva Conventions is exactly why the terrorists are able to recruit so many people to their cause. We claim to be a bastion of freedom and responsibility, yet we resort to the exact same tactics they use, wiping our ass on the Constitution we purport to value so much in the process. Ever hear of something called the Fourth Amendment? Yeah, holding people without trial is completely in violation of that. End of story.

Quote:

---

My mindset is that as long as I can live my life unimpeded, I really don't care one whit what happens to those people or what our military does to achieve that end. Their lives don't affect me and never will. Torture them, rape them, do weird-ass psychic experiments on them, make them watch endless episodes of Friends for all I care. Just get them out of society and off of my news.

---

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

-Pastor Martin Niemöller

No, terrorists are not recruited because of some innate hatred for our practices. They are recruited because of radical Islam. They're apparently too stupid to realize that it isn't exactly sensible to be merciful in a war, or to be anything other than as capitalist as possible. Then again, they're stupid enough to believe in fundamentalist Islam, so there you are.

And actually, I watch CNN most of the time. They're the most convenient place to get news.

Niemoller was either too stupid or unable to get his ass out of the country. Not my problem.

Above, you took the standpoint that we shouldn't release the pictures because it will cause them to take up arms against us. Now I understand you to be saying that they aren't taking up arms against us because of anything we've done. Which is it? You can't have it both ways. never mind, I misread the thread.

However, it still stand that if we weren't torturing their people in our prisons, they wouldn't be able to get so many recruits. They all already know, or suspect, that this sort of stuff is happening in our prisons anyway. Releasing the images would tell them nothing they didn't already suspect, but it will get the message out to the American people that what we're doing in our prisons is absolutely no better than anything they're doing. That might not affect you any, but it would certainly affect the vast majority of the American public.

And it's because of people with your attitude that regimes like Nazi Germany were allowed to come to power. Evidently, my quote didn't get that through to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Man

Above, you took the standpoint that we shouldn't release the pictures because it will cause them to take up arms against us. Now I understand you to be saying that they aren't taking up arms against us because of anything we've done. Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

And it's because of people like you that regimes like Nazi Germany were allowed to come to power. Evidently, my quote didn't get that through to you.

---

No, you misunderstood my point earlier. My point earlier was not that the pictures shouldn't be released. It's that I don't care one way or the other, because it doesn't really impact any of us. And in case you hadn't noticed, they've ALREADY taken up arms against us and sworn in the name of their god to bring us crashing down. I don't really think they can get that much more pissed off than they already are.

Also, defaulting on a Hitler argument = good way to lose a debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ?????

I don't care one way or the other, because it doesn't really impact any of us. And in case you hadn't noticed, they've ALREADY taken up arms against us and sworn in the name of their god to bring us crashing down. I don't really think they can get that much more pissed off than they already are.

---

Your argument is like saying "Well a few people in Europe don't like America right now, so there's no way we can piss off the European countries more." It doesn't make any logical sense. Considering that only a small portion of people in Islamic nations are terrorists right now, but they're recruiting more every day as a direct result of things that are happening in our prisons, I think it can get a lot worse. Every day this war drags on brings additional anti-American sentiment and convinces additional people to take up arms against us, and matters like a prison camp where a supposed bastion of democracy uses twelfth-century torture tactics on people who haven't even received trials doesn't help our credibility any.

Quote:

---

Also, defaulting on a Hitler argument = good way to lose a debate.

---

My point stands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Man

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ?????

I don't care one way or the other, because it doesn't really impact any of us. And in case you hadn't noticed, they've ALREADY taken up arms against us and sworn in the name of their god to bring us crashing down. I don't really think they can get that much more pissed off than they already are.

---

Your argument is like saying "Well a few people in Europe don't like America right now, so there's no way we can piss off the European countries more." It doesn't make any logical sense. Considering that only a small portion of people in Islamic nations are terrorists right now, but they're recruiting more every day as a direct result of things that are happening in our prisons, I think it can get a lot worse. Every day this war drags on brings additional anti-American sentiment and convinces additional people to take up arms against us.

Quote:

---

Also, defaulting on a Hitler argument = good way to lose a debate.

---

My point stands.

---

I'm talking about the terrorists in the Middle East, not some random pot-smoking hippie bitches in Eastern Europe. Besides, we have more than enough power to ruthlessly crush any other country or even combination of countries at the present time. Basically, our good graces are the only reason America isn't a global empire. I wish it was, namely because I hold absolutely no regard for human life in general. My self-interest is the only reason a lot of the bastards I know aren't dead right now; my desire to stay out of prison is more powerful than my desire to put them in a casket.

And your point doesn't stand. If it did, I would have either contested it or conceded. Answering with a completely irrelevant quote and nothing else is so laughable that I don't feel it deserves a serious response.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ?????

I'm talking about the terrorists in the Middle East, not some random pot-smoking hippie bitches in Eastern Europe.

---

Ah. I see. They follow a funny religion that no one in our country really understands, so therefore the rules of logic and political thought don't apply to them.

Quote:

---

Besides, we have more than enough power to ruthlessly crush any other country or even combination of countries at the present time. Basically, our good graces are the only reason America isn't a global empire.

---

Um. You might want to take a look at how the Iraq war has been going lately before you go bandying about such claims. Also, wasn't the whole point of your argument that these evil terrorists posed such a deadly threat to us that we needed to invade their lands and lock them up without a trial? That doesn't sound like the behaviour of a nation that's fully secure with its place in the world.

Quote:

---

And your point doesn't stand. If it did, I would have either contested it or conceded. Answering with a completely irrelevant quote and nothing else is so laughable that I don't feel it deserves a serious response.

---

I fail to see how the quote I posted is irrelevant. You said that taking a few people's rights away doesn't matter, I posted a quote that relates to the slippery slope of a government that consistently appropriates more power for itself. Not irrelevant at all.

It's something of a fallacy to say that no one in our country understands Islam. I understand Islam quite well. It is a religion rooted in conquest, brainwashing, and violence, just like Christianity, Judaism, and most other major religions save perhaps for Buddhism, and even that is questionable. The rules of logic dictate that, because their interests conflict with ours and they have taken up arms against us, the only rational response would be to wipe them out of existence, because they have demonstrated the desire to do the same thing to us.

The Iraq war has actually been going rather well, from a purely numerical standpoint. We've had about 2,000 of our men die, of which approximately 900 have lost their lives in combat. Quite frankly, any other country at any time in history would do anything for those numbers. I don't particularly care what happens to Iraqi civilians; I'm solely concerned about our personnel. Even citing Vietnam won't exactly help one's case; in Vietnam, we had an 18 to 1 kill ratio in favor of us. We lost about 58,000 men there. In Iraq, we have also maintained a kill ratio that is decisively in our favor. Extrapolating our current number of military deaths per year to the length of the Vietnam War, we will have lost under 20,000 men if the Iraq war does last that long.

I also think it's ironic that you used the phrase "slippery slope" in defense of your Niemoller point, considering that's the very logical fallacy you committed there.

A slippery slope applies when the government in question has repeatedly demonstrated its desire to wield more power over the populace. It was the case in Stalinist Russia, it was the case in Fascist Italy, it was the case in Nazi Germany, and it's the case now. It is worth nothing that America's current government meets certain loose criteria for fascism as it currently exists, and when the government decides that Constitutional principles can be thrown out the window at will as it is doing here, that brings us one step closer to a genuine loss of freedom.

Two thousand American soldier deaths is quite disastrous to me, thanks, considering that Saddam didn't have the WMDs and didn't have any ties to al-Qaeda. The terrorists wouldn't even be in that country right now if we hadn't invaded it. And it's not getting any better.

And to say Islam is at its core a combative religion is as erroneous as to say that Christianity is. Granted, there are extremists who have taken selected verses from its holy work and used those to justify unmentionable atrocities. However, to pretend that their behavior is any different from the behavior of religious Europeans is to commit a grave logical fallacy.

You might favour the sort of scenario that's likely, given Iran's stated desire to wield nuclear power, to lead up to global nuclear war, but I'd rather stay away from that path.

The Geneva Convention applies only to prisoners of war. For every other person in the world, the relevant documents are treaties like the ICCPR and the Torture Convention, both of which are major international law documents, which the US has signed and ratified. The US is legally obliged to obey these treaties, by reason of a solemn promise to every other state that has ratified. Both treaties prohibit torture of anyone, anywhere. The ICCPR also codifies the ancient rule of innocence until proof of guilt.

If a US soldier tortures a prisoner in Iraq, he commits an international crime that can be prosecuted anywhere in the world. Prisoners, even "suspected terrorists", are protected by the presumption of innocence - they may be "suspects", but unless or until they're convicted by a lawful tribunal, they are innocent of any crime.
Even if they are found guilty, torture remains illegal. The freedom from torture and c/i/d punishment is a universal right, not just an 'optional extra' that can be applied at whim.

"But they're terrorists!"
No they're not, they're suspects, and some of them aren't even that; some innocents are picked up for looking suspicious, or for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

"But they do it to us!"
Yes, terrorist groups have been known to torture prisoners, so do some Arab states - but not the individuals being held and tortured in facilities such as Abu Ghraib. To say that "an Arab hurt an American, so it's OK for an American to hurt any Arab he chooses" is ridiculous.

One of the biggest excuses motivating the current conflict in Iraq was a desire to "bring freedom" to the Iraqi people. Instead, we're expected to believe that this can be achieved by a continuing removal of the most basic human rights - due process of law, freedom from torture, freedom from arbitrary detention. "It's OK for Americans to do it, but it's also OK for America to condemn it and to kill other people for doing it".

Quote:

---

The Iraq war has actually been going rather well, from a purely numerical standpoint. We've had about 2,000 of our men die, of which approximately 900 have lost their lives in combat. Quite frankly, any other country at any time in history would do anything for those numbers. I don't particularly care what happens to Iraqi civilians; I'm solely concerned about our personnel.

---

Estimates vary, but between 20,000 and 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died during the conflict - mainly "collateral damage" from coalition bombs and shells. You say you don't care about them. How would the US react if Al Qaeda said "we never meant to kill anyone in the Twin Towers; the buildings were our real target so those deaths are just collateral casualties, not our fault and not our problem"?

This war is allegedly being fought to "protect the innocent", yet as per usual they sustain the greatest losses, losses that continue to take a toll due to the destruction of national infrastructure and livelihoods.

Quote:

---

Besides, we have more than enough power to ruthlessly crush any other country or even combination of countries at the present time. Basically, our good graces are the only reason America isn't a global empire.

---

The world-wide presence of nuclear arms is also a relevant factor, I believe. The US has... what? 5000 warheads? Out of at least 20,000 in existence. The US has strong financial influence by reason of its status as the global economic superpower, but in the end it's a nation of a mere quarter-billion people. It's military might is significant, but not enough to directly enslave the rest of the world.

ALL governments desire power over the populace. If a government cannot control the populace by force, it is not a government.

I somehow doubt that I would stand for having my personal rights taken away; if such a thing happened in America, widespread revolt would ensue, even in the military, because military personnel are not obligated to follow orders that are not in accordance with the Constitution. But the Constitution extends its protections to American citizens ONLY.

Saddam did likely have the WMDs. I'm of the opinion that he carted them off to Syria or one of those other moronic terrorist countries or groups. His ties to al-Qaeda were virtually nonexistent; he and Osama differed substantially in their religious stances. However, considering that both have an open disdain for the U.S., that isn't particularly relevant.

Two thousand American soldier deaths is nowhere near disastrous. It's a drop in the bucket.

And Islam is indeed a violent, combative religion. There exist no other ways to interpret those particular verses. A is A; a thing either is or it isn't. A verse in a holy book either advocates violence or it does not. There is no in-between; contradictions do not exist. Christianity is also a violent, combative religion. Their behavior is not different than that of, say, the Crusaders. Their behavior is different from ours, in that we endeavor not to kill civilians randomly. I don't particularly care if we do or not, at least not because of any humanitarian reason; wanton civilian slaughter wastes resources that could be appropriated to better subdue and destroy the enemy.

5000 warheads is more than enough to basically nuke the crap out of everything.

The 9/11 terrorists' target was both the buildings and as many civilians as they could kill in the process of destroying them.

And, as I stated earlier, upholding the Geneva Convention's anti-cruelty laws and other similar statutes is completely irrational, because terrorists aren't going to be doing it; practical concerns should weigh heavier than all else. Humanitarian concerns should be at the bottom of our list of worries. You've got to break a few eggs to make an omelette.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ?????

I somehow doubt that I would stand for having my personal rights taken away; if such a thing happened in America, widespread revolt would ensue, even in the military, because military personnel are not obligated to follow orders that are not in accordance with the Constitution. But the Constitution extends its protections to American citizens ONLY.

---

The US government has already given itself the right to override numerous Bill of Rights freedoms and protections. Search and seizure, indefinite arbitrary detention, others... all gone, if someone decides you've got a "connection to terrorism". There's been no civil unrest, and very little backlash in the US - anyone who complains about having their freedoms destroyed is simply labelled "unpatriotic", "un-American" or whatever else sounds exciting on the news.

Quote:

---

Saddam did likely have the WMDs. I'm of the opinion that he carted them off to Syria or one of those other dumb terrorist countries or groups.

---

The US government has publically admitted that Iraw had no functional WMDs at the time of the invasion.

Quote:

---

His ties to al-Qaeda were virtually nonexistent; he and Osama differed substantially in their religious stances. However, considering that both have an open disdain for the U.S., that isn't particularly relevant.

---

So... if a country's leader/dictator has a disdain for the US, then it's ok for the US to invade, killing thousands of innocents in the process? George Bush has a "disdain" for France. I doubt that could be used to justify an EU "liberation" of the US...

Quote:

---

Two thousand American soldier deaths is nowhere near disastrous. It's a drop in the bucket.

---

Not to those who died. Or their units, their families, their friends.

Quote:

---

And Islam is indeed a violent, combative religion. There exist no other ways to interpret those particular verses.

---

So is Christianity. The Crusades were religious genocide committed in the name of Christianity. Christian fundamentalists constantly murder in the name of their religion; being Christian also didn't stop IRA terrorists from killing the innocent, nor did it prevent CIA operatives committing and aiding terrorism against pro-Marxist states during the 1980s.

Quote:

---

Their behavior is different from ours, in that we endeavor not to kill civilians randomly.

---

Who is "they"? The fundamentalist terrorists, or every Muslim individual? Mainstream Islam is a non-violent as mainstream Christianity or secularism. The violent acts of a few do not justify the wanton annihilation of the rest; otherwise EVERY subculture would be eligible for destruction.

Incidentally... when an Air Force bombs a building with knowledge that innocents will be killed inside, there's little difference from bombing a building in order to kill the innocent. Both would be murder, under any country's criminal law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ?????

I somehow doubt that I would stand for having my personal rights taken away; if such a thing happened in America, widespread revolt would ensue, even in the military, because military personnel are not obligated to follow orders that are not in accordance with the Constitution. But the Constitution extends its protections to American citizens ONLY.

---

The US government has already given itself the right to override numerous Bill of Rights freedoms and protections. Search and seizure, indefinite arbitrary detention, others... all gone, if someone decides you've got a "connection to terrorism". There's been no civil unrest, and very little backlash in the US - anyone who complains about having their freedoms destroyed is simply labelled "unpatriotic", "un-American" or whatever else sounds exciting on the news.

---

You're generalizing. Prove the consistency of this statement.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Saddam did likely have the WMDs. I'm of the opinion that he carted them off to Syria or one of those other moronic terrorist countries or groups.

---

The US government has publically admitted that Iraq had no functional WMDs at the time of the invasion.

---

Functional, perhaps not. But I'd rather not wait around for them to be functional, considering his attitude towards us.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

His ties to al-Qaeda were virtually nonexistent; he and Osama differed substantially in their religious stances. However, considering that both have an open disdain for the U.S., that isn't particularly relevant.

---

So... if a country's leader/dictator has a disdain for the US, then it's ok for the US to invade, killing thousands of innocents in the process? George Bush has a "disdain" for France. I doubt that could be used to justify an EU "liberation" of the US...

---

Of course not, because we'd kick their asses into next year and they know it. On the other hand, I'm all for an invasion of France.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Two thousand American soldier deaths is nowhere near disastrous. It's a drop in the bucket.

---

Not to those who died. Or their units, their families, their friends.

---

Their family and friends don't matter.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

And Islam is indeed a violent, combative religion. There exist no other ways to interpret those particular verses.

---

So is Christianity. The Crusades were religious genocide committed in the name of Christianity. Christian fundamentalists constantly murder in the name of their religion; being Christian also didn't stop IRA terrorists from killing the innocent, nor did it prevent CIA operatives committing and aiding terrorism against pro-Marxist states during the 1980s.

---

Yes, I stated this as well. I have no idea what purpose agreeing with me so vehemently on that particular issue serves toward making your argument.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Their behavior is different from ours, in that we endeavor not to kill civilians randomly.

---

Who is "they"? The fundamentalist terrorists, or every Muslim individual? Mainstream Islam is a non-violent as mainstream Christianity or secularism. The violent acts of a few do not justify the wanton annihilation of the rest; otherwise EVERY subculture would be eligible for destruction.

---

"They" constitutes fundamentalist terrorists, in this case.

[quote]

Quote:

---

Incidentally... when an Air Force bombs a building with knowledge that innocents will be killed inside, there's little difference from bombing a building in order to kill the innocent. Both would be murder, under any country's criminal law.

---

This isn't particularly relevant.

As I said, the Bill of Rights makes a very clear distinction between American citizens and everyone else. It is not a misconception.

Three thousand CIVILIAN deaths matter, because they're our civilians. Two thousand MILITARY deaths do not.

As I stated earlier, I don't care whether Iraqi civilians are safer or not. As long as terrorists die when our military fires, however many enemy civilians get killed is a complete non-issue. I'm an imperialist; I believe in expanding our power and economy as much as possible. The oil revenues we'll bring in from over there will be massive.

The nuclear issue is why I advocate some sort of a missile defense system. Basically, my desire is no less than to nuke offending countries with impunity and plunder the hell out of whatever's left.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ?????

ALL governments desire power over the populace. If a government cannot control the populace by force, it is not a government.

---

Just because a government exercises force to lock up criminals does not mean that it actively seeks to gain additional power. The difference lies in the ideology of the people running it, and whether they are more concerned for those being governed or for those doing the governing. In this particular case, the vast amount of evidence (most recently, the disastrous responses to Katrina and, to a lesser extent, Rita) suggests that the majority of concern rests with those doing the governing.

Quote:

---

I somehow doubt that I would stand for having my personal rights taken away; if such a thing happened in America, widespread revolt would ensue, even in the military, because military personnel are not obligated to follow orders that are not in accordance with the Constitution. But the Constitution extends its protections to American citizens ONLY.

---

That's a common misconception. Nowhere does the Bill of Rights ever make a distinction between citizens and non-citizens.

Quote:

---

Saddam did likely have the WMDs. I'm of the opinion that he carted them off to Syria or one of those other moronic terrorist countries or groups. His ties to al-Qaeda were virtually nonexistent; he and Osama differed substantially in their religious stances. However, considering that both have an open disdain for the U.S., that isn't particularly relevant.

---

I've yet to see any solid evidence presented for the "Saddam gave the WMD away" theory. There seems to have been plenty of evidence given that the WMD had been destroyed, exactly as the records said they had. Since we never found the WMD and the Nigerian yellowcakes theory has been thoroughly discredited, I think it's fairly safe to say that the entire war was marketed on a lie, namely that Saddam had nuclear weapons. That, I would regard as a crucial mistake.

Quote:

---

Two thousand American soldier deaths is nowhere near disastrous. It's a drop in the bucket.

---

By that scale, three thousand American deaths on 9/11 is nowhere near disastrous either. Good call.

Quote:

---

And Islam is indeed a violent, combative religion. There exist no other ways to interpret those particular verses. A is A; a thing either is or it isn't. A verse in a holy book either advocates violence or it does not. There is no in-between; contradictions do not exist. Christianity is also a violent, combative religion. Their behavior is not different than that of, say, the Crusaders.

---

I can agree with you here, at least in that they both contain violent verses.

Quote:

---

Their behavior is different from ours, in that we endeavor not to kill civilians randomly. I don't particularly care if we do or not, at least not because of any humanitarian reason; wanton civilian slaughter wastes resources that could be appropriated to better subdue and destroy the enemy.

---

Here I do not, simply because of the reasons Big D cited above that as many as 100,000 Iraqis may be dead. If the 100,000 dead estimate is true, we have killed 100,000 in three years. Saddam killed 300,000 in thirty years, so it wouldn't be far amiss to say that you'd have been safer as an Iraqi citizen under Saddam's regime.

Quote:

---

5000 warheads is more than enough to basically nuke the crap out of everything.

---

But the problem with this is that once we launch nukes, so does everyone else who has them. And then the world gets destroyed.

Quote:

---

As I said, the Bill of Rights makes a very clear distinction between American citizens and everyone else. It is not a misconception.

---

Then I would like you to point out where it says makes this "very clear distinction," because search as I may, I am completely unable to locate it, and when I have asked other trolls such as you to locate it, they too have come up completely blank. Until you do such, I will assume that you are just making this up.

Quote:

---

Three thousand CIVILIAN deaths matter, because they're our civilians. Two thousand MILITARY deaths do not.

---

So we don't have a duty to the people who signed up to protect our country to ensure that they don't spend their lives in vain?

Quote:

---

As I stated earlier, I don't care whether Iraqi civilians are safer or not. As long as terrorists die when our military fires, however many enemy civilians get killed is a complete non-issue. I'm an imperialist; I believe in expanding our power and economy as much as possible. The oil revenues we'll bring in from over there will be massive.

The nuclear issue is why I advocate some sort of a missile defense system. Basically, my desire is no less than to nuke offending countries with impunity and plunder the hell out of whatever's left.

---

Wow. Self-centered much?

I'd love to know exactly how I'm trolling. I'm not just saying this stuff to piss people off.

And yes, I am very self-centered. This is not a flaw, but rather a mark of character.

Quote:

---

You know what I mean. Terrorists and other enemies don't follow the Geneva Convention's rules, so why should we?

---

Because it's morally wrong to act otherwise? I just have to wonder where you get your moral reasoning from.

Quote:

---

My mindset is that as long as I can live my life unimpeded, I really don't care one whit what happens to those people or what our military does to achieve that end. Their lives don't affect me and never will. Torture them, rape them, do weird-ass psychic experiments on them, make them watch endless episodes of Friends for all I care. Just get them out of society and off of my news.

---

You're worse than the terrorists.

Quote:

---

It's something of a fallacy to say that no one in our country understands Islam. I understand Islam quite well.

---

I thought you were serious until you said this:

Quote:

---

It is a religion rooted in conquest, brainwashing, and violence

---

I can't be assed to read any more posts in this thread at the moment because it's nearly 3:00 am, but I have yet to get my fill of hateful rhetoric and general nonsense, so I'll definetly be back tomorrow with an argument or two.

Ah, be caerful not to turn this topic into another US is bad- US is good topic, we're a little bored of that, aren't we?

As for Mr. ????, you are quite dogmatic for having such a nick. I am not going to bother to reply to this right now, because your fossiliced mammonic ideas of the state are despicable enough to be ignored. However, I feel it's good for you to say you are a self-centered imperialist, if there is something I dislike more than ideas that have no respect for life is those same ideas covered in flowers. So keep that make-up off.

Quote:

---

Proof. Without it, a lot of people will find it difficult to believe exactly what's going on therein.

---

It's a reasonable argument, but it's still not a reason heavy enough to counter the fact you are distributing humilliating pictures. I believe Donald Rumsfeld when he says it's horrible, actually it must be one of the few times when I actually buy what he sells. Saying the images are what they are dosen't benefit him at all, and that's the main reason I believe him, I do not know wht he would be lying.

Ah, The Man, that quote you put, I believe it was actually said by Bertolt Brecht.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nik0tine

Quote:

---

You know what I mean. Terrorists and other enemies don't follow the Geneva Convention's rules, so why should we?

---

Because it's morally wrong to act otherwise? I just have to wonder where you get your moral reasoning from.

---

I have to wonder where you get yours from. My moral reasoning comes from the fact that in the absence of a provable morality, the only one we can rationally follow is a morality based on selfishness.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

My mindset is that as long as I can live my life unimpeded, I really don't care one whit what happens to those people or what our military does to achieve that end. Their lives don't affect me and never will. Torture them, rape them, do weird-ass psychic experiments on them, make them watch endless episodes of Friends for all I care. Just get them out of society and off of my news.

---

You're worse than the terrorists.

---

In terms of methodology, I'm exactly the same. No more, no less.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

It's something of a fallacy to say that no one in our country understands Islam. I understand Islam quite well.

---

I thought you were serious until you said this:

Quote:

---

It is a religion rooted in conquest, brainwashing, and violence

---

I can't be assed to read any more posts in this thread at the moment because it's nearly 3:00 am, but I have yet to get my fill of hateful rhetoric and general nonsense, so I'll definetly be back tomorrow with an argument or two.

---

No, I am quite serious. I cite these verses from the Koran as proof:

Quran-47:4: When you meet the unbelievers in the Jihad strike off their heads.

Quran-9:5: Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them and take them captive, and besiege them and prepare for them each ambush.

Quran-2:191: And slay (kill) them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out such is the reward of those who suppress faith.

(Source: www.secularislam.org)

How many ways can you think of to reasonably interpret those verses? ONE. Precisely one.

I will give you credit for following your premises to their logical conclusions. However, I submit that your premises (compassion, equality, etc.) are in grave need of adjustment, because they largely do not reflect nature. Is it possible to be completely self-centered? Of course not. But this doesn't change the fact that selfishness and greed is what drives society forward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ?????

I'd love to know exactly how I'm trolling. I'm not just saying this stuff to piss people off.

---

I'm honestly not convinced you really believe any of the rhetoric you're spouting, in fact, I'm honestly not convinced anyone this side of Hitler could, so yes, that would make you a troll.

And since you responded to my request for a citation from the Constitution with snark, I'll assume you have none and you were just making stuff up. Capital.

Actually, on the Constitution issue, the burden of proof is on you to prove that it applies elsewhere. It says nowhere in the document that it applies anywhere outside of the U.S.

I do support eugenics to an extent. It occurs naturally anyway, through evolution; why not help it along? I say this as a possessor of Semitic blood as well as a possessor of Asperger's Syndrome. If it were not for my intellect, there would be no moral reason to allow my existence to continue, for it would be a drain on society.

About me and my philosophy, you're partially correct. In all honesty, I hate my entire philosophy right down to its godforsaken core. I'd be exceedingly happy if someone, anyone, would kindly obliterate it. It's just that it's quite difficult, perhaps nigh-impossible, to punch holes in without invoking emotion-based arguments or an unprovable higher force.

I am starting to think you are someone with a sense of humour on a second account.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ?????

Actually, on the Constitution issue, the burden of proof is on you to prove that it applies elsewhere. It says nowhere in the document that it applies anywhere outside of the U.S.

---

Since it says nowhere in the document that it does not apply anywhere outside of the U.S., the rational interpretation is to assume that it applies to non-citizens. Since distinctions are made between citizens and non-citizens in various portions of the Constitution, but are not made in the Bill of Rights, the rational thing to do is assume that they're talking about everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ?????

I do support eugenics to an extent. It occurs naturally anyway, through evolution; why not help it along? I say this as a possessor of Semitic blood as well as a possessor of Asperger's Syndrome. If it were not for my intellect, there would be no moral reason to allow my existence to continue, for it would be a drain on society.

About me and my philosophy, you're partially correct. In all honesty, I hate my entire philosophy right down to its godforsaken core. I'd be exceedingly happy if someone, anyone, would kindly obliterate it. It's just that it's quite difficult, perhaps nigh-impossible, to punch holes in without invoking emotion-based arguments or an unprovable higher force.

---

touché

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Man

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ?????

Actually, on the Constitution issue, the burden of proof is on you to prove that it applies elsewhere. It says nowhere in the document that it applies anywhere outside of the U.S.

---

Since it says nowhere in the document that it does not apply anywhere outside of the U.S., the rational interpretation is to assume that it applies to non-citizens. Since distinctions are made between citizens and non-citizens in various portions of the Constitution, but are not made in the Bill of Rights, the rational thing to do is assume that they're talking about everyone.

---

Laws like that usually govern territories, so the entirety of the US - including everyone within it - should be covered. As soon as you start having different laws (and different protection) for separate "groups" of people in the same state, you risk straying into apartheid territory.

Research objectivism. It's where a good deal of my current philosophy is derived from. As I said, it's quite hard to punch holes in from a purely logical standpoint. It does advocate a very coldhearted point of view, but its logical support is impeccable.

Yes, I do have quite a sense of humor, but I'm certainly not exhibiting it right now.

I don't particularly wish to get into the constructionism argument, however. It's essentially a pointless argument between "it doesn't say I can't, so I can" and "it doesn't say you can, so you can't." Regardless, the document was never meant to be static.

Indeed. basically, the Constitution says what the current Supreme Court says it says. Which is why I hope we don't get a ridiculously far-right-leaning judge nominated to replace O'Connor.

I think this policy issue is an example of the tragedy of the commons.

I'd rather have a centrist judge replace O'Connor, but that's not likely to happen. A far right-wing judge will likely be nominated for the position.

Indeed. I'm not too fond of Roberts, but really, Bush could've nominated someone a lot worse. And I suspect he's going to. Which means basically, our best hope is the Democrats actually have some spine and filibuster the next nominee.

I guess objectivism isn't exactly the philosophy with the most developed ethical system. Can you expose it briefly, please? I would like to see what this might logically irrefutable philosophy says.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadow Nexus

I guess objectivism isn't exactly the philosophy with the most developed ethical system. Can you expose it briefly, please? I would like to see what this logically irrefutable philosophy says.

---

Well, I didn't say I was completely objectivist. I said that a goodly portion of my philosophy consists of objectivism. Some of its tenets defy the logic I've been able to put together, which is why I said it was almost impossible, rather than completely impossible, to defeat it logically.

Objectivism is a system of epistemology set forth by Ayn Rand, the most vehement capitalist I've ever heard of. It is elucidated upon in her novels, The Fountainhead, Anthem, and the most well-known, Atlas Shrugged. Hers promotes itself as a philosophy entirely, 100% based in reason. It starts with the ancient philosophical precept, A is A; a thing is equal to itself. To deny this amounts to solipsism; the belief that nothing actually exists and knowledge is thus impossible. However, there exists no evidence whatsoever for a belief in solipsism, whilst there exists ample evidence for the existence of reality, through our own senses. Having now established that existence exists, Rand goes on to state that, because A is A, contradictions in reality do not and cannot ever exist under any circumstances. If she was walking down the street and saw someone pull a summon to thwart an attacking gang, she wouldn't chalk it up to magic. She would say, as I do and as a scientist would in the situation, that there is a reason in physics why there exist beings that are able to be summoned into this plane of existence and throw random crap at people. Therefore, it is not magic; magic is defined as the actual manipulation of physical laws, which would constitute a contradiction. According to A is A, this cannot happen. "True" magic cannot exist.

Having established that there exists a logical reason for every occurrence that transpires in the universe, Rand takes a detour to the more human side of things. Inherent psychology of all organisms compels them to do everything they do for their own gain. This is backed by overwhelming consistency. Every time I sit down to watch Star Wars for the trillionth time, I'm doing it because I think it kicks ass. Every time I feel a sense of accomplishment after working a particularly messy math problem, I've done it because it's what I like doing (or in the case of some people, they're doing it because it's required to get to something they want.) If I accept a given faith (something that Rand hates more vehemently than anything else, because of its lack of and according to her, flagrant insult to logic) I'm doing it because I either believe that by doing so I will grow as a person or that I'll be saved from burning in hell forever. If I have sex with someone, I'm doing it because it feels good (the understatement of the century). As the urge to acquire and to act upon one's will is the only verifiable imperative, Rand asserts that a focus on the self is the only truly moral way to live, because to do otherwise (i.e. to live for the sake of others) would violate the laws of nature and cause incredible human suffering. There does exist a good bit of support for that, in the complete and utter failure of Communism. Communism violates human psychology; without incentive for gain, humans will not work. Compare that with our thriving capitalist system. Rand holds that the work we produce is the product of our rational, reasoning minds, and that we deserve to be rewarded according to the quality of our work; living for others restricts the mind's ability to be the way it is naturally. Therefore, capitalism is the most kickass economic system ever.

Now we come to the last part of objectivism in a nutshell, which concerns dealing with other people, or the ethical system that Shadow Nexus mentioned. It is quite developed, but not in a way that has very much to do with emotion, as it is, after all, based on the principle of selfishness. Here is where I perceive that her deviations lie. According to Rand, the quality of a person's character is based upon the work they do; this fits well with her theory of capitalism. This I can agree with. However, Rand goes on to say that for the sake of allowing the human mind to grow, we must never engage in violence against one another. This, in my opinion, is in direct contrast to nature, which violence and death are very much a part of. The universe we live in, due to the law of conservation of energy, requires us to take from, and in some cases, destroy others in order to exist, lest we be destroyed ourselves and our resources appropriated for their gain. All of the empires and governments in history have been built upon bloodshed and human suffering stemming from the innate desire to control and the (according to Rand) supremely moral virtue of selfishness, the desire to acquire possessions and money. Basically every Final Fantasy game, as well as Chrono Trigger and Chrono Cross, and probably a bunch of other RPGs I haven't gotten around to, have complained at length about this; this is the same complaint I make. From a logical perspective, full selfishness bears absolutely no concern for the growth of others' minds and will happily destroy them for its own growth. But in addition, we are logically all quite connected to each other. We can prove this from any epistemological viewpoint, ranging from emotions to mathematics and derivatives thereof (pun lolz). I hold the view that it is logically impossible to be 100% selfish; that would imply never doing anything that helps anyone else, ever. And yet, it's a generally accepted and easily provable fact that when you help other people, you're helping yourself in some form or fashion.

That's all I can type for right now, but it should give you a basic idea of what objectivism is about. You can google it as well, obviously.

That's a pretty good explanation of Objectivism, really. I agree with a lot of points of it, actually, but I definitely don't agree with the interpretation a lot of her followers have that the government's welfare and education systems should be eliminated entirely. I consider it to be in everyone's best interests that everyone else have food, shelter, education and health care so that they can contribute fully to the workforce.

I still need to read some of her books (besides Anthem, which I thought raised a number of valid concerns about collectivist societies), although I suspect that I'll end up disagreeing vehemently with her on certain issues. xD

I object to objectivism for one simple reason. There is no such thing as a completely independent person (or nation, which in my mind can be viewed as a person). For example you drive on roads built by other people, your PC was built by someone else, your clothes, shoes, and food all were produced by others. So if you were completey selfish, you wouldn't care about the people who do all those things for you. If you don't care for the others in a society (or in the case of nations, the international community), then they will eventually be unable or unwilling to provide those things for you. If you are enough of an ass, then they may even break into your house to get your stuff, etc.

Even if you don't care for others because you feel a moral obligation, failing to do so would make things worse for you.

That's why objectivism doesn't work. It seems to operate on the assumption that all humans are independant, and therefore even if your neighbor has absolutely nothing, you'll be fine because your neighbor never provides you with anything.

In other words, the reason that you'd better care about the state of affairs in the middle east is that's where we get our oil (and dates too, I think) and therefore we need to be nice to the people in that part of the world, at least if we want our cars to start up.

There's plenty of oil in Alaska, but the planeteers won't let us drill there.

In the beginning of humanity, all of us were largely independent. A functional society depends on everyone being interested enough in their own gain that they put out the work for it.

I get it. And I see flaws. Every system has flaws.

Quote:

---

She would say, as I do and as a scientist would in the situation, that there is a reason in physics why there exist beings that are able to be summoned into this plane of existence and throw random crap at people. Therefore, it is not magic; magic is defined as the actual manipulation of physical laws, which would constitute a contradiction. According to A is A, this cannot happen. "True" magic cannot exist.

---

A is A is a tautology (sp?) far from proving anything. The principle of no contradiction dictates that "something cannot be another thing in the same place and time". I can accept that. However, from that principle, I cannot see why human reason can actually defended as the ultimate form of knowledge. The Baron of Munchausen has to cross a lake to get to the castle, yet he can't swim, and the lake is too deep for him to walk. The Baron explains how he held his ponytail high to keep him suspended above the water as he walked. Of course, the truth is the Baron never got to the castle. Your philosophy seems to imply the Baron could walk despine the ocean being too deep, and that is the error of the illustrated path. Immanuel Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason already pointed out the limits of knowledge, with arguments only refutable from the point of view of mysticism. Attempting to cross the lake walking is like attempting to take this scientifical reason beyond it's actual capability. This is also a contradiction. In the end, what you claim to be knowledge is belief.

Quote:

---

Inherent psychology of all organisms compels them to do everything they do for their own gain. This is backed by overwhelming consistency.

---

Doubtful, as is everything, but I'll accept it as true now because discussing this would take us far away from the topic.

Quote:

---

As the urge to acquire and to act upon one's will is the only verifiable imperative, Rand asserts that a focus on the self is the only truly moral way to live, because to do otherwise (i.e. to live for the sake of others) would violate the laws of nature and cause incredible human suffering.

---

If human suffering is what she is trying to avoid, I can see a great contradiction with her defense of capitalism. I'll get to that later.

Quote:

---

Communism violates human psychology; without incentive for gain, humans will not work.

---

Psychology or culture? Ah, , I can't believe I find myself with Marx again, I always find myself defending Marx in this forums, not because I am a Marxist, but because the whole point of his system has been corrupted to such points people actually believe Communism to be something completly different to what it actually is.

But that's OK, I'll use Marx again: are you familiar to the concept of suprastructure? Attempting to modify the means of production (infrastructure) would change culture (suprastructure). This is also supported by overwhelming evidence. All the suppositions this good lady is doing, all of them, are based entirely on capitalist suprastructure. She parts from the capitalist man to get back to capitalism. She first exposes the suprastructure- wich she considers "natural"- and then goes down to justify infrastructure. Terrible mistake, and a common one. To define a way of thinking as "universal" is by itself a fallacy, to attempt to reduce human psychology to such simple shcemes is reductionist and dosen't embrace the true complexity of things. Obviously, what she is saying applies- sadly- to a great part of the population, but not for all. Marx did the same error: his theory of history develops only through what he knows of European history. Fantastic theory...for Europe.

Quote:

---

Rand holds that the work we produce is the product of our rational, reasoning minds, and that we deserve to be rewarded according to the quality of our work; living for others restricts the mind's ability to be the way it is naturally.

---

Capitalism is "thriving"? No, "we are the hollow men/ we are the stuffed men", "shape without form, shade without colour,/ paralysed force, gesture without motion" (T.S Eliot). And for me, that is the biggest argument about most political and economical system, including capitalism. The hollow men are the reason against modernism. The hollow men are the children of capitalism, the masses. The hollow men are born from this suprastructure. The capitalism you speak of is a productive totalitarism. In the end, we are rewarded exclusively for our work for the community. The community, the vulgar community, the mediocre chained in the cave, the hollow men. The hollow masses. Because a vicious circle that has emptied them, the circle of eternal production, the perfect ouroboros for the perfectly wrong. This is not individualism, this is submission to mediocrity. Capitalism has a simple law of offer and demand. Offer what is demanded. What is not demanded, what is not giving economical profit, is out of the system, is marginal. When the system has created a suprastructure of hollowness, men will only ask for the hollow. This happens now, and it is increasing. Who cares about the sublime, about Dante or Cervantes, when the brave new world has constructed a perfect kingdom of zombies? It dosen't matter, "for Thine is the Kingdom".

And then, what with all of this production? What will happen when we produce beyond what resources allow us? Who is going to save the hollow men? "This is how the world ends".

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

She would say, as I do and as a scientist would in the situation, that there is a reason in physics why there exist beings that are able to be summoned into this plane of existence and throw random crap at people. Therefore, it is not magic; magic is defined as the actual manipulation of physical laws, which would constitute a contradiction. According to A is A, this cannot happen. "True" magic cannot exist.

---

A is A is a tautology (sp?) far from proving anything. The principle of no contradiction dictates that "something cannot be another thing in the same place and time". I can accept that. However, from that principle, I cannot see why human reason can actually defended as the ultimate form of knowledge. The Baron of Munchausen has to cross a lake to get to the castle, yet he can't swim, and the lake is too deep for him to walk. The Baron explains how he held his ponytail high to keep him suspended above the water as he walked. Of course, the truth is the Baron never got to the castle. Your philosophy seems to imply the Baron could walk despite the ocean being too deep, and that is the error of the illustrated path. Immanuel Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason already pointed out the limits of knowledge, with arguments only refutable from the point of view of mysticism. Attempting to cross the lake walking is like attempting to take this scientific reason beyond it's actual capability. This is also a contradiction. In the end, what you claim to be knowledge is belief.

---

No, it implies, as you said, that the Baron never made it to the castle.

Kant is thoroughly and completely in error. In a universe where no contradictions can exist, reason is not merely the ultimate form of knowledge; it is the ONLY viable form of knowledge. There are no limits to knowledge; Kant's choosing to make arguments that can only be refuted with mysticism shows his ignorance. It's like the ID theory; it's untestable and unfalsifiable, and thus it is not science. What we know is knowledge is a value judgment based on reason, not faith or any derivative thereof.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Inherent psychology of all organisms compels them to do everything they do for their own gain. This is backed by overwhelming consistency.

---

Doubtful, as is everything, but I'll accept it as true now because discussing this would take us far away from the topic.

---

No, explain why it's doubtful. We've got another four billion years before the sun explodes.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

As the urge to acquire and to act upon one's will is the only verifiable imperative, Rand asserts that a focus on the self is the only truly moral way to live, because to do otherwise (i.e. to live for the sake of others) would violate the laws of nature and cause incredible human suffering.

---

If human suffering is what she is trying to avoid, I can see a great contradiction with her defense of capitalism. I'll get to that later.

---

You're right here, though one has to question whether it's possible to avoid suffering.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Communism violates human psychology; without incentive for gain, humans will not work.

---

Psychology or culture? Ah, , I can't believe I find myself with Marx again, I always find myself defending Marx in this forums, not because I am a Marxist, but because the whole point of his system has been corrupted to such points people actually believe Communism to be something completly different to what it actually is.

But that's OK, I'll use Marx again: are you familiar to the concept of suprastructure? Attempting to modify the means of production (infrastructure) would change culture (suprastructure). This is also supported by overwhelming evidence. All the suppositions this good lady is doing, all of them, are based entirely on capitalist suprastructure. She parts from the capitalist man to get back to capitalism. She first exposes the suprastructure- wich she considers "natural"- and then goes down to justify infrastructure. Terrible mistake, and a common one. To define a way of thinking as "universal" is by itself a fallacy, to attempt to reduce human psychology to such simple schemes is reductionist and dosen't embrace the true complexity of things. Obviously, what she is saying applies- sadly- to a great part of the population, but not for all. Marx did the same error: his theory of history develops only through what he knows of European history. Fantastic theory...for Europe.

---

What's wrong with reductionism? As Ockham's razor says, the simplest solution that fits the facts is usually the right one.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Rand holds that the work we produce is the product of our rational, reasoning minds, and that we deserve to be rewarded according to the quality of our work; living for others restricts the mind's ability to be the way it is naturally.

---

Capitalism is "thriving"? No, "we are the hollow men/ we are the stuffed men", "shape without form, shade without colour,/ paralysed force, gesture without motion" (T.S Eliot). And for me, that is the biggest argument about most political and economical system, including capitalism. The hollow men are the reason against modernism. The hollow men are the children of capitalism, the masses. The hollow men are born from this suprastructure. The capitalism you speak of is a productive totalitarianism. In the end, we are rewarded exclusively for our work for the community. The community, the vulgar community, the mediocre chained in the cave, the hollow men. The hollow masses. Because a vicious circle that has emptied them, the circle of eternal production, the perfect ouroboros for the perfectly wrong. This is not individualism, this is submission to mediocrity. Capitalism has a simple law of offer and demand. Offer what is demanded. What is not demanded, what is not giving economical profit, is out of the system, is marginal. When the system has created a suprastructure of hollowness, men will only ask for the hollow. This happens now, and it is increasing. Who cares about the sublime, about Dante or Cervantes, when the brave new world has constructed a perfect kingdom of zombies? It dosen't matter, "for Thine is the Kingdom".

---

Why do you think we're doing the work? We're not doing it for the sake of the community. We're doing it for our sake. Also, what's this talk of the sublime? What, precisely, do you define as sublime?

And honestly, citing poetry isn't a very good argument, no matter what you're arguing for or against.

Quote:

---

And then, what with all of this production? What will happen when we produce beyond what resources allow us? Who is going to save the hollow men? "This is how the world ends".

---

We cannot ever produce beyond what resources allow. Such a thing violates the laws of physics.

Oh boy... you just had to say it.. didn't you? You had to bring me in on this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ?????

And honestly, citing poetry isn't a very good argument, no matter what you're arguing for or against.

---

I take it you do not read or write poetry? I can forgive such a mistake if that is so. I used to think similarly until I opened my eyes and actually looked at poetry(4 or so years ago).

Poetry is just as useful(sometimes more useful) a means to convey a message as anyother form. Most people just don't take the time to truely read it. Poetry and the like can convey some of the most important messages.

The Hollow Men(a pretty neat poem by the way) can convey multiple messages and arguements. However, the difference between poetry and other forms of writing is this:

1) normal writing(or so we potential writers are taught) assumes you are a dumbass and know nothing. We are also taught to assume that you need to be retold what we already told. Not to mention to define everything to a fault. Not a bad philosphy... but not perfect.

2) Poetry; assumes you can think and read between the lines. It assumes that you know something. And it implies it.


There is another way to cite this difference:

This is my favorite all time quote "Show me, Don't tell me," And it is good to show the difference between an essay or article and poetry.

An essay or article "tell[s] me," whereas poetry attempts to "Show me".

Both are valid sources. You can't say one is not just cause you don't understand it(I assume you don't, that or you read into a lot different then most people I know).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ?????

Quote:

---

And then, what with all of this production? What will happen when we produce beyond what resources allow us? Who is going to save the hollow men? "This is how the world ends".

---

We cannot ever produce beyond what resources allow. Such a thing violates the laws of physics.

---

I believe most of us reading this took it as being not 100% literal. As in what happens when we used up all our resources and can't produce anymore. Once again, reading between the lines. Not everything there is readily visible.



And as a final point, yes people are selfish. But some of us just enjoy helping people. I like to help people... not cause it always makes me feel good(it doesn't always.. I don't enjoy helping those that I am "enemies" with). However, I would expect the same treatment from them. And I am a firm believer that how you treat people affects how they treat you. It must work cause I have a lot of freinds.

Shun Nakamura was nice enough to point out what I meant with those verses. Then again, maybe we are speaking in different languages. Or maybe I overestimated you.

Quote:

---

In a universe where no contradictions can exist, reason is not merely the ultimate form of knowledge; it is the ONLY viable form of knowledge.

---

Reason in Greece is different to reason after Descartes. Reason proclaims it's own contradictions, even though that may sound like an oxymoron. Are you familiar to David Hume's empirical skepticism? Modern reason has a limit, it is drawn right when we get to things beyond the understanding of man. Things beyond space and time. Like God. Like reality beyond the veil of Maya.

Quote:

---

Kant's choosing to make arguments that can only be refuted with mysticism shows his ignorance

---

Kant was not an ignorant, he simply was not a mystic. And you aren't either. If you are able to refute the Critique of Pure Reason through reason, I'll present you as a candidate to a Nobel prize.

Quote:

---

No, explain why it's doubtful. We've got another four billion years before the sun explodes.

---

Here:

Quote:

---

And as a final point, yes people are selfish. But some of us just enjoy helping people. I like to help people... not cause it always makes me feel good(it doesn't always.. I don't enjoy helping those that I am "enemies" with). However, I would expect the same treatment from them. And I am a firm believer that how you treat people affects how they treat you. It must work cause I have a lot of freinds.

---

Quote:

---

What's wrong with reductionism? As Ockham's razor says, the simplest solution that fits the facts is usually the right one.

---

Usually. And of course, Ockham was in different terms, he was not refering to psychology. As said, the argument is upside down. Capitalism fits this humanity you talk about, a society of hollow men. Because capitalism created them. The pyschological theory you wield is as hollow and simple as it can get. It attempts to do a general rule out of the behaviour a few. Isn't that unreasonable?

Quote:

---

Why do you think we're doing the work? We're not doing it for the sake of the community. We're doing it for our sake.

---

Capitalism is for the sake of the community. Offer and demand. Society demands, you must satisfy such demands. If you produce what is not demanded, to hell with you. And personally, I believe Divina Comedia is something superior to Da Vinci Code. And "Les quatre cents coups" is far beyond Episode III. But in a society of hollow men, the hollow is the demanded, the hollow is the produced. Because the hollow men have their "headpiece filled with straw", because this is how capitalism can mantain itself. If people longed beyond Eliot's Wasteland, things would be different.

Quote:

---

What, precisely, do you define as sublime?

---

The sublime lies in the eye of the beholder. For me, the sublime is in Baudelaire, Goethe, Gil de Biedma, Hölderlin, Friedrich, Gauguin, Rembrandt, Chopin, Mahler, Truffaut, Wong Kar-Wai, Basho and a few more. That as for the sublime produced by man. Then there is the sublime in nature, wich is beyond art. The sublime is found in the aesthetical extasis, in Beauty with capital letters, and of course, that is beyond reason, beyond offer and demand.

Quote:

---

We cannot ever produce beyond what resources allow. Such a thing violates the laws of physics.

---

Shun replied to that. We are already overporducing. We waste more quickly than nature can regenerate. Productive totalitarism demands. We do not eat, we devour.

I do both read and write poetry, actually. I write many forms and genres of fiction, and plan to do so as part of a living someday. It's just not generally a good thing to cite it in a debate.

If Kant is so irrefutable, then why is there even a field of science anymore? Why haven't we all packed our bags and gone home? The answer is simple: because Kant is wrong. There exist no limits to reason. What Kant is advocating is a variant of solipsism, for which there exists absolutely no evidence whatsoever. In fact, solipsism flies in the face of all of our well-established logic. If reason is invalid, then Kant cannot argue with reason that reason is invalid. Instead, he argues in terms of mysticism, which flies directly in the face of A is A (which, by the way, is not some simple, overused maxim -- it is the very cornerstone of reality.)

Objectivism would hold that God does not exist because there exists no proof that he does. I don't necessarily agree with this, because it is impossible to prove one way or the other, so a responsible, reasoning being would dismiss it not as false, but as arbitrary. Quite simply, you either believe it or you don't.

Reason proclaims absolutely no contradictions, anywhere, save for things that seem like contradictions but in fact are solvable through the acquisition of more knowledge. Remember, contradictions cannot exist. If contradictions can exist, reason does not work. As our technology has shown, reason does work. Therefore, anything that is seemingly a contradiction can be solved.

If Kant wasn't a mystic, he wouldn't be ignorant, now would he? Kant is actually one of the most easily refuted writers in history, and I'm far from the only one who can point out some of the blatant idiocy that his philosophy is filled with. Proving him to be a babbling buffoon is far from a Nobel-worthy achievement. If you want to argue against the current order of science and reason, you must do it in terms of logic, which can be proven, not in terms of something untestable and unprovable. Either the universe exhibits a defined set of behaviors, or it does not. You can't have it both ways.

Capitalism did not create the society you're describing; human psychology created capitalism. And in the case of an altruism such as that you're describing, you are still helping your enemies for your own benefit, because you perceive that by doing so you are displaying moral fortitude.

Capitalism is also absolutely, 100% not for the sake of the community. People only care that other people live insofar as those other people are able to produce stuff that they want, which they can buy through their money, or insofar as other people make them feel good somehow. People produce for the community in order to get money for themselves. They don't do it for the sake of producing for the community, or because they want to be generous. The fact that they produce a product to sell is irrelevant. Their intention is what matters.

It's odd, though, because as much as I logically agree with this, what I desire the most is a state of being (other than death) in which all sentient suffering is null and void. Eventually, assuming some bad doesn't happen to us, we're going to run out of things to discover. That will likely take millions of years, but it'll happen eventually. What will be the capitalistic incentive then? Innovation will no longer be possible. At that point, I think we will have but two choices: to enter a state of paradise, or to die. Personally, I'd like the former option. I'm sure everyone can agree with me on this.

Erm...uhm...I have the impression you haven't understood Kant. Either that or you are confusing him with another philosopher. Mainly because I don't see how your suposed refutation matches his theory. Are you sure you are not confusing him with Hume?

Quote:

---

Capitalism did not create the society you're describing; human psychology created capitalism.

---

And who created socialism? And tribalism? And monarchy? And anarchism?

Quote:

---

you are still helping your enemies for your own benefit, because you perceive that by doing so you are displaying moral fortitude.

---

As far as I put examples, you can show me how the action is selfish. Mainly because good actions always have some kind of benefit to the subject, even if it's just "feeling good". When I do a good action looking at my gain, I know it. When I do it out of good nature, I know it too. The fact you move for selfishness dosen't mean everyone does. I am far away from sainthood, but I know when I am caring for my fellow brothers and when not. To this you can reply it's unconscious selfishness. To that, I cannot anwser, I have no evidence, and you have no evidence.

Quote:

---

They don't do it for the sake of producing for the community, or because they want to be generous. The fact that they produce a product to sell is irrelevant. Their intention is what matters.

---

That is much closer to socialism.

Quote:

---

Oh god... They haven't even been tried. NONE of these people are convicted terrorists, and therefore you shouldn't be calling them terrorists.

---

They are enemy soldiers that fired upon American forces. Not terrorists, but not innocent either. Doesn't mean they should get such horrible treatment, though.

As for the claim - no, the actual images of the despicable acts at Abu Gharaib should not be released. There's no reason to - it would harm the prisoners even more, would make people sick, and doesn't contriubute to anything. The acts have been made, no-one is denying that, and so, actual images are not needed.

If anyone asks for these images and videos to be released, I'd have to doubt their motives, thinking maybe they're from rotten.com, or own some tabloid that could profit from such disgusting images.

I think it would be wrong to release more pictures, because the result of the pictures would be more deaths. That would be wrong.

do you think that the groups in al qaeda seriously need a set of pictures to kill american soldiers? the fact that they are there is good enough.

the american military must needs to face up to the kind of soldiers it has. as was seen in the other post about exchanging pics of dead iraqis for porn. this isn't an isolated incident. abu gahrib is not new. it happened in baghram and it continues to happen in guantanamo. the de-humanisation of people is something the american army has been very good at since the vietnam war.

it is part of this war now. if you mention quantanamo bay when the torture isn't in doubt there will be people who say "but their terrorist" like the fact that they are human doesn't matter and that they deserve the most degrading treatment. ignore that they were never tried. the american population and more specifically only cares that these folk could be terrorists and so don't count. like the germans did with the communists.

the american government isn't worried about iraqis seeing this. they have had reasons for the past few years to blow up american soldiers. and this isn't what incited 9-11.

the american government is worried about it's bad publicity. this happened on their watch. this is proof of what the american army is doing. and that isn't good propaganda.