Does exactly what it says on the tin. Some of the nonsense contained herein may be very loosely related to The Sisters of Mercy, but I wouldn't bet your PayPal account on it. In keeping with the internet's general theme nothing written here should be taken as Gospel: over three quarters of it is utter gibberish, and most of the forum's denizens haven't spoken to another human being face-to-face for decades. Don't worry your pretty little heads about it. Above all else, remember this: You don't have to stay forever. I will understand.
sultan2075 wrote:What do they teach you Europeans about your own cultural past?
What? All 729 million of us? Different things, really, depending who got taught where. We're not all the same. From someone who has taken issue with a statement that all Texans are the same (i.e. stupid, or whatever the comment was), you're doing a pretty good job of sweeping (continental wide) generalisations yourself.
sultan2075 wrote:You see? This is the problem I tried to point out to you folks earlier. Your utterly ill-informed prejudices get in the way of any sort of serious discussion.
You're not the messiah, and you're not here to point out what you perceive to be "our problems". That's a terrible ill-informed prejudice. Or a messiah complex. Or another socially-awkward individual revelling in the power of safety and anonymity behind a computer screen. Don't you just love pop psychology (I do - and I spend all day publishing academic psychology).
sultan2075 wrote:I guess that's why most replies in this forum consist of a few brief sentence fragments held together by ellipses.
I think you'll find that's more to do with the emerging linguistic form which has evolved for instant text-based comunication - linguistic formats evolve based on various cultural and technological constraints and freedoms, and the form of short fragmented reply has been documented (the earliest documentation I know of was by the Linguistics department at Southampton University).
sultan2075 wrote:An argument that isn't expressed clearly isn't terribly effective--and most (but not necessarily all) of the time, it's not a good argument to begin with.
Poor spelling (such as the American mispelling of English) doesn't reduce the power of an argument for me - I'm interested in the concepts. I had to read the Canterbury Tales in the original (old) English at school many years ago - it didn't reduce my enjoyment of it.
So let's not get anally retentive about spelling.
Especially since this - like most internet fora - is global, and we do have a particularly large number of people here who do not speak/write English as their first language. Most of the time you wouldn't notice because they all write very good English, but occasionally a word is picked with the wrong nuance or a word is spelt incorrectly. We ignore it. House rules - and good manners.
sultan2075 wrote:Spell correctly if you want to be taken seriously in writing. That's the way of the world, get used to it. No one is going to hire you, for example--regardless of your qualifications for a given job--if your cover letter begins 'I'm am havening of an interesting for job.'
sultan2075 also wrote:the Urban Homsetead Act for low-income families
Clucking Belle wrote:No you don't. In my three years on this forum, I would opine that most of you don't have a scooby. And although you think you do, provided that your hopelessly ill-informed prejudices and woefully argued views are kept to this forum then I won't lose any sleep over them.
Which begs the question...
Can anybody guess?
Sultan, I think you have the wrong idea about me I'm afraid. While you didn't exactly strike me as a "Bush fanboy", you do strike me as that other phenomenon... someone who claims to want "debate", yet spends and inordinate amount of time simply telling those who don't agree with him that they're basically ignoramuses (ignoramii? one for the spellers I think) with flimsy arguments and half-baked opinions. Which is sad as you're obviously a well-read and politically aware individual who could make perfectly good points without any cerebral oneupmanship.
I, like many others here I'm sure, absolutely loathe Bush, let me be clear. And a great many other things about your country, if I'm being entirely honest.
But I'm sure there are many people on this forum who would be more than happy to discuss these things, provided we stick to the issues at hand, and avoid trading insults of ignorance and narrow-mindedness.
And the intellectual "mine's bigger than yours" . I think many of us have been guilty of this at one time or another. But if your arguments are strong surely they can stand alone without any of that?
It's similar to the post I've quoted. And there's no need for debate to be reduced to mud-slinging at particular individuals or HL in general. If we're that bad, then you're probably wasting your time trying to talk to us and you should take yourself off to some forum where people's minds haven't been dulled by years of inhaling hairspray fumes. If we're not, then just have some respect for the intelligence of the people who engage with you.
Re your comment on the European media not reporting Bush's speech on *gasp* policy... well, obviously I can't know the extent of what I've not been shown, but you can't expect the BBC (for example) to report on policies which will affect American citizens alone. We, and the rest of the world, are most interested in Iraq and the "War On Terror" - this is where Bush's (or as Tim said, Bush's puppetmasters') influence extends around the globe. I'm still waiting for him to deliver a good slice of The Beef as far as that's concerned...
Last edited by boudicca on 18 Sep 2005, 02:06, edited 5 times in total.
There's a man with a mullet going mad with a mallet in Millets
*applauds Sultan for being the first person ever to take one of MB's posts serious.*
on a more serious note: Sultan, why don't you give us some meaningful arguments on what you think are the positive aspects of the Bush government. I agree that it is nowadays not easy to find a Bush apologist over here in Europe, so I would appreciate to get an insight into the "other side".
At least that would be far more interesting than your lengthy, yet unsubstantial intellectual show-off barkings around here.
And before you pick on my spelling mistakes: I found that around your ramblings:
Nietzshe
sorry but you asked for it.
Put their heads on f*cking pikes in front of the venue for all I care.
What? All 729 million of us? Different things, really, depending who got taught where. We're not all the same. From someone who has taken issue with a statement that all Texans are the same (i.e. stupid, or whatever the comment was), you're doing a pretty good job of sweeping (continental wide) generalisations yourself.
I never said you were all the same. The generalization (or generalisation, if you like) was meant somewhat in jest and aimed at two specific people. That said, the history of Europe is very much connected to the history of Christianity. Someone who has been educated in the history of Europe ought to know something of Christianity (just as they ought to be aware of Greek philosophy, for example. Athens and Jerusalem--it's hard to have Western civilization without them). It's one of the two major components of Western civilization.
You're not the messiah, and you're not here to point out what you perceive to be "our problems". That's a terrible ill-informed prejudice. Or a messiah complex. Or another socially-awkward individual revelling in the power of safety and anonymity behind a computer screen. Don't you just love pop psychology (I do - and I spend all day publishing academic psychology).
I've never claimed to be the messiah. I do enjoy eristics, and frankly, I'm disgusted by what passes for discourse here. I am here to point out what I perceive as 'your problems', just as you're here to point out mine. As for being socially awkward, eh...you're psychologizing me, yet you know little or nothing about me. And for the record, no, I don't love pop-psychology. Or pop-philosophy, for that matter.
I think you'll find that's more to do with the emerging linguistic form which has evolved for instant text-based comunication - linguistic formats evolve based on various cultural and technological constraints and freedoms, and the form of short fragmented reply has been documented (the earliest documentation I know of was by the Linguistics department at Southampton University).
This is an interesting topic to me. However, I'm not convinced that it's an 'evolution' of language--or if evolutionary terminology bothers you, let's say I'm not convinced it's beneficial. The real question is whether or not it conveys meaning in a clearer or more efficient fashion. You seem aware of linguistic theory; it's generally accepted that languages develop in the direction of simplicity--compare Attic Greek to modern Greek, if you want an example--the question is whether or not txt-speak or l33tsp3@k allows for more efficient communication. I'm not convinced it does, so for me the jury is still out on that. I suppose on that score, history will be the judge.
Poor spelling (such as the American mispelling of English) doesn't reduce the power of an argument for me - I'm interested in the concepts. I had to read the Canterbury Tales in the original (old) English at school many years ago - it didn't reduce my enjoyment of it.
So let's not get anally retentive about spelling.
It's not really anal retentiveness. If one is sloppy about spelling, diction, grammar, etc (and I don't mean the occasional typo) on a consistent basis, the argument will generally be sloppy, inconsistent, etc. Are there exceptions to the rule? Of course there are, but they are few and far between.
Especially since this - like most internet fora - is global, and we do have a particularly large number of people here who do not speak/write English as their first language. Most of the time you wouldn't notice because they all write very good English, but occasionally a word is pickedwith the wrong nuance or a word is spelt incorrectly. We ignore it. House rules - and good manners.
Hey, my wife doesn't speak English as a native, and I think I'm generally *very* attentive to the errors that are the result of speaking it as a second language and those that are a result of sloppiness or ignorance about one's native language (I teach on weekends at a school in what one might call the 'ghetto', and invariably, the students who employ English as a second
language are more precise in their speaking--and writing--than many of those who are native speakers. That said, it points to a peculiarly American problem, I think, that likely doesn't exist in an explicitly multi-lingual arena like the EU). It's generally clear when someone isn't a native, and that's fine. But ignorance of one's own language, like ignorance of one's own culture, is no excuse.
Bored now. That'll be my short atten...
Clever.
Sorry, I ignored the rest of your post.
Oh! You caught a typo (rather than a systematic butchery of the language)! Good for you! Would you like a biscuit?
Sultan, I think you have the wrong idea about me I'm afraid. While you didn't exactly strike me as a "Bush fanboy", you do strike me as that other phenomenon... someone who claims to want "debate", yet spends and inordinate amount of time simply telling those who don't agree with him that they're basically ignoramuses (ignoramii? one for the spellers I think) with flimsy arguments and half-baked opinions. Which is sad as you're obviously a well-read and politically aware individual who could make perfectly good points without any cerebral oneupmanship.
Point well taken. That said, my initial response wasn't really borne out of a desire to engage in debate so much as to castigate people for not basing arguments on facts. The '10% of the world are sinners' crack, for example, was ignorant. No other word for it. So was the suggestion that he should have done more or acted sooner about Katrina--it was a comment that came out of ignorance about the structure of American government and the limits on presidential power. I've been a member of these forums for a while, and frankly, the anti-Americanism I see around here is fairly revolting. Worse, though, is the fact that much of it comes from people who, frankly, have little to no idea what they're talking about. Not all forum members, obviously. But some...and they're vocal. It got annoying. I would also like to add that I have intentionally tried to avoid letting my beliefs be known. In point of fact, it's quite possible that I agree with many of the criticisms, but not what they're based on.
I, like many others here I'm sure, absolutely loathe Bush, let me be clear. And a great manyother things about your country, if I'm being entirely honest.
That's perfectly fine. I've got some major problems with both of them myself. It's funny, though...everyone seems (maybe I'm wrong about this) to assume I'm some sort of Bush-ite simply because I point out that some of their criticisms don't hold water. I'm not. There are legit reasons to dislike him. I just don't see them here. I see half-assed arguments based on non-existent facts coupled with character assassination. Is that all I see here? No. But it's a lot. And it ain't exactly conducive to discussion, unless one wants simply to preach to the choir.
But I'm sure there are many people on this forum who would be more than happy to discuss these things, provided we stick to the issues at hand, and avoid trading insults of ignorance and narrow-mindedness.
And the intellectual "mine's bigger than yours" . I think many of us have been guilty of this at one time or another. But if your arguments are strong surely they can stand alone without any of that?
My arguments, I think, such as they are, stand on their own. My argument, such as it is, is that most (not all) of the people posting about politics on here are so blinded with irrational prejudices and Bush-hatred that they are incapable of having a serious discussion about things. Look at the post that started it all. It's drivel, devoid of fact, nuance or subtlety. I read it and thought what on earth was the point of posting THAT? People ought to think at least a bit before they speak (or write, for that matter).
The fact is (and I'm sure this will just add to your low opinion of me), I get the impression most (not all) of the people around here aren't well-read enough for a serious discussion--of politics, literature or philosophy (just to name a few). So why did I try to start one? Beats me. Boredom, I guess. If I were to tell you that the American Lincoln/Douglas
debates were about the same issue as the Socrates/Thrasymachus debates in Book I of the Republic, would anyone here really be able to agree or disagree meaningfully?
It's similar to the post I've quoted. And there's no need for debate to be reduced to mud-slinging at particular individuals or HL in general. If we're that bad, then you're probably wasting your time trying to talk to us and you should take yourself off to some forum where people's minds haven't been dulled by years of inhaling hairspray fumes. If we're not, then just have some respect for the intelligence of the people who engage with you.
I may well be wasting my time . Then again, there may be people here who are capable of serious discussion. I wouldn't have said anything if I didn't think it was a possibility. I'm really not slinging mud. I've used terms like idiot and jackass, sure. Call it slinging mud if you like. I call it hyperbole (or calling a spade a weapon). And some ideas are idiotic (see 10% above). And some things I read here are like the braying of a jackass.
Re your comment on the European media not reporting Bush's speech on *gasp* policy... well, obviously I can't know the extent of what I've not been shown, but you can't expect the BBC (for example) to report on policies which will affect American citizens alone. We, and the rest of the world, are most interested in Iraq and the "War On Terror" - this is where Bush's (or as Tim said, Bush's puppetmasters') influence extends around the globe. I'm still waiting for him to deliver a good slice of The Beef as far as that's concerned...
No, I don't expect the BBC to do such, and it wasn't so much a comment as a sincere question. His speech was largely--surprisingly--substantive. As for the War on Terror...I rather suspect that's something that has been coming for a long time. AQ is simply the most recent manifestation of a sort of apocalypse-minded militant Islam that was allowed to metastasize due to to a lack of attention from the West (Cold War and all that...). The argument could (and has) been made that the War on Terror ultimately aims at defeating mosquitoes by draining swamps. What does that mean? It means that Bush and the people around him believe that by undertaking a massive, long-term (much longer term than they've publicly admitted) military and political project of transformation in the middle-east, they can erode the social and political structures that make people turn toward terrorism. Are they right? Who knows...it's hard to say. His argument is predicated on the belief that human nature is the same always and everywhere. If it is, then the M.E. wants freedom and security just as much as other nations (and thus the only argument is about how that is to be achieved). If human nature isn't eternal, and changes with time and place...then you're eft with either a) the (ultimately racist) position that Arabs or Muslims aren't suited for Western style liberal politics, or b) human nature can be changed by external pressure. That's the implicit argument for what they do. Is it right? That depends on what human nature consists in. Can someone critique the position without understanding it? No, ultimately. Just like we can't critique Kant (or Wittgenstein, if you prefer) without understanding what they mean. Understanding precedes critique. Does the fellow who says Bush thinks %10 of the world are sinners understand? I think not.
on a more serious note: Sultan, why don't you give us some meaningful arguments on what you think are the positive aspects of the Bush government. I agree that it is nowadays not easy to find a Bush apologist over here in Europe, so I would appreciate to get an insight into the "other side".
At least that would be far more interesting than your lengthy, yet unsubstantial intellectual show-off barkings around here.
Well, I'm by no means an apologist for the Bush government, let's get that straight right now. What I am a fan of is fair and factually based critique (as opposed to the 'Bush eats babies that he steals from Iraq and drowns in New Orleans because he's both an idiot and an evil genius' sort of garbage). My initial answer to your request is to say 'It's not a Kerry government.' A more serious answer would be that he takes the threat posed to Western civ by radical Islam seriously. That's what I think is a positive aspect of the Bush government. No more, no less. He's never met a spending bill he didn't like, he's hopelessly wrong on the southern border, but he gets that one thing. And it's an important thing, I think. I also think the Urban Homestead Act is a great boon to the Katrina afflicted areas (and it at least starts to address the endemic poverty that has long existed in that region).
And before you pick on my spelling mistakes: I found that around your ramblings:
Yes, a typo. Quite funny. Hoo-hoo, hah-hah. Again...not a systematic abuse of the language (unless you want to talk about things like 'favor' VS 'favour'). And yes, I asked for it. I was in a hurry to leave for Oktoberfest, and thus typed in a rather quickly.
A more serious answer would be that he takes the threat posed to Western civ by radical Islam seriously. That's what I think is a positive aspect of the Bush government. No more, no less.
Does he? So why did he start this ill-fated Iraq War then? There have been no evidences for a Saddam-al-Q. connection (as Powell verified last week again) In fact, Saddam kept his backyard clear of islamic fundamentalists, whereas Saudi-Arabia....., but of course, they're oily friends...
As it turned out, Post-War Iraq is an enormous factor of de-stabilisation in the middle-east and unfortunately just contributes to the rise of the radical islam.
Sadly enough, Bushs action made the world unsafer.
It means that Bush and the people around him believe that by undertaking a massive, long-term (much longer term than they've publicly admitted) military and political project of transformation in the middle-east, they can erode the social and political structures that make people turn toward terrorism. Are they right? Who knows...it's hard to say.
Yes, people are changeble, but Bush et al. applied completely the wrong means to change anyone to the better.
And now have fun on the Oktoberfest.
Put their heads on f*cking pikes in front of the venue for all I care.
sultan2075 wrote:As far as I'm concerned, any man who considers 10 percent of the population to be sinners by birth should be taken out and f*cking shot, not given charge of the world's largest nuclear arsenal.
What do they teach you Europeans about your own cultural past? Nothing at all? He's a Christian (look it up). That means he thinks everyone in the world is born a sinner, not 10% of the population. You can't even insult the guy properly!
Shows how much you know.
That's a Catholic belief, not a Christian one. General Christian belief is that we sin of our own free will. The 10% I'm referring to are those of "deviant sexuality".
It is you who is misinformed of your country's past.
Does he? So why did he start this ill-fated Iraq War then? There have been no evidences for a Saddam-al-Q. connection (as Powell verified last week again) In fact, Saddam kept his backyard clear of islamic fundamentalists, whereas Saudi-Arabia....., but of course, they're oily friends...
As it turned out, Post-War Iraq is an enormous factor of de-stabilisation in the middle-east and unfortunately just contributes to the rise of the radical islam.
Sadly enough, Bushs action made the world unsafer.
Well, that's a legitimate question. I think he appreciates the threat radical Islam poses on a strategic level. The question is whether or not Iraq was a tactical mistake. The administration, to my knowledge, never explicitly argued that the two were connected. Remember, the case for war wasn't that Saddam was an imminent threat, but a slowly metastasizing one--i.e., he can't be allowed to become an imminent threat. As far as de-stabilizing the middle-east, well...I'm not sure that's such a bad thing, given what the status quo has been over there for so long (i.e. the West--not just the US--coddling dictators). The Iraq project was, and still is, a bold or foolish gamble. I don't think we'll know which it was for another ten years at least. If it succeeds, than it will go a long way toward addressing the endemic social and political problems of the Arab world. You say he made the world less safe. I say maybe in the short-term he did, but we don't yet know the long-term results--and that, I think, is what really matters here. Of course, you can't go to the UN and say 'Tony and I are going to undertake a 25+ year social engineering project in Iraq'. You have to dress it up in other terms (simple Machiavelli, straight out of the Prince).
Yes, people are changeble, but Bush et al. applied completely the wrong means to change anyone to the better.
I know I've said it already, but I really don't think we're in any position to judge the efficacy of the strategy. The results will become known long-term rather than short term.
And now have fun on the Oktoberfest.
Thanks, I did.
Shows how much you know.
That's a Catholic belief, not a Christian one. General Christian belief is that we sin of our own free will. The 10% I'm referring to are those of "deviant sexuality".
It is you who is misinformed of your country's past.
U571, anyone?
One of the major points of Genesis is that we sin because we are post-lapserian. Of course it's because of our free will. It's also because we are fallen creatures. Not even a Calvinist will claim that the elect aren't sinners, they're all sinners. Incidentally, that's also one of the major points of the Incarnation--it's necessary to save us from our sin, because we can't do it on our own. Christian belief--at least mainstream Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox--will maintain we are all sinners. Because of free will and fallen nature. Perhaps you thought I was referring to the doctrine of original sin. I wasn't. And where, exactly, am I misinformed about my country's past? The only historical events I can recall referencing were the Lincoln/Douglas debates and the publication of the Federalist papers. Hollywood movies and WW2 coding devices don't really interest me.
I was referring to your remark that Europeans are not well taught about their own history and thus cited the example of the Hollywood corrupting history and feeding it to the masses as truth.
As for the ideas of sin, I guess I'll rephrase that. Any man who believes that 10% of the population are irredeemably sinful (i.e, Due to the way that they are made they can never enter heaven) should not be leading a nation where separation of church from state is considered a basic principal.
at the end of the day 99.9% of HLers love it here and if we're too low-brow/uneducated/ignorant for the rest of you then you can go fuck yourselves sideways for all i care.
what's up? -are you "too good" for us, but not quite good enough for the genuinely intellectual fora?
Well I was handsome and I was strong
And I knew the words to every song.
"Did my singing please you?"
"No! The words you sang were wrong!"
Hey, emwk, nothing wrong with a bit of discussion, if we let aside the penis-size- comparing.
The Iraq project was, and still is, a bold or foolish gamble. I don't think we'll know which it was for another ten years at least. If it succeeds, than it will go a long way toward addressing the endemic social and political problems of the Arab world.
How can this war still succeed? It's already now a complete and utter failure, a blatant waste of lives and money. The US military strategists over-estimated widly the religious differences between Sunnites and Shi-ites, the multitudes of cultural and ethnic problems of that region and the downright hatred which a lot of Iraqis held for their so-called liberators. The manichaeism of the neo-cons is too simplistic and self-righteous to deal with the many shades of grey in the arab world.
And succeed in what? In fighting against islamic terrorism? Certainly not.
I don't know, if you grasped a bit of german, while strolling around the Oktoberfest, because this phrase can't be translated accurately: Kaiser Wilhelm ll, who led the Germans into WW I once said: "Am deutschen Wesen soll die Welt genesen." A phrase that (applied to the US) could stand as the quintessence of the self-opinionatedness of the Bush governement.
I know I've said it already, but I really don't think we're in any position to judge the efficacy of the strategy. The results will become known long-term rather than short term.
Honestly, what more do you think will happen there? One look in my crystal ball tells me, that the Iraqis will tend more and more to fundamentalism, they might even introduce the sharia again.(sic!) Bush has to slowly withdraw his troops for economic reasons and internal political pressure. And then what?
Put their heads on f*cking pikes in front of the venue for all I care.
supposedly open-minded and, by their own admission, intelligent, people out yank bashing, probably in packs and for, what, cheap thrills
A man who spent four days sitting on his pampered ar$e while people were dying in New Orleans? But what the fcuk, right? They were only poor people and blacks, they're never going to vote Republican are they?
mark, you're not by any means the only one , but once again, you've made a complete tit of yourself
Kathleen Blanco waited 24 hours to make such a request--in fact, she only gave the evacuation order (and that at the last minute) because the President called her a number of times and requested her to do it.
i'll state now, i don't know this to be fact, but i believe bush was offering to help 1-2 days before katrina hit, and was rebuffed. even earlier then than you so rightly state above.
what i do know, and it seems far too obvious for this place; there are two sides to any story and the global media giants, unfortuntely, only prefer you should read/hear/view one. well, i'm neither a cnn, nor a fox man, but it does seem worth, just occasionally, taking time out to consider the apposite perspective, sometimes even the truth goddam it
not sure quite what the point is, but for me,the best thread (constructed arguments) this year , a joy to read sultan
Honestly, what more do you think will happen there? One look in my crystal ball tells me, that the Iraqis will tend more and more to fundamentalism, they might even introduce the sharia again.(sic!)
it'll take time but it seems to be going generally the right way isn't the fundamentalism more to do with forcing things to happen according to some preconceived date on a plan, you know twenty percent held the power, for democracy to work the other eighty percent have to become accomodating to their old power-brokers, and that twenty percent accepting, i dunno, but maybe slowly slowly catchy monkey in this case
afghanistan has just had it's first democratic vote, so it can't be all bad
canon docre wrote:Hey, emwk, nothing wrong with a bit of discussion, if we let aside the penis-size- comparing.
i agree -but it's not the discussion that i was responding to.It was the fact that we have HL members who really think that the rest of us are all thick,crass, and downright stupid.
clucking belle wrote:In my three years on this forum,i would opine that most of you don't have a scooby.And although you think you do,provided that your hopelessly ill-informed prejudices and woefully argued views are kept to this forum then i won't lose any sleep over them.
if that is truly your opinion of us and our views then i'm not surprised that you haven't posted much in three years.
what i do wonder is why you come here at all -i tend not to seek out the company of those who i find ignorant and stupid.i have joined several forums where i've felt as you do,but guess what? i stopped participating in them and went somewhere else!
i think of HL and HLers as "us" - like Rosalie i guess you don't .
and Sultan -your opinion of the majority of us is no better...i haven't bothered quoting your numerous derogatory comments about how poorly-read,uneducated and misinformed we are (not to mention being unable to articulate our retarded miscconceptions and factual innaccuracies to your satisfaction ).
i actually have no problem with the original debate ,and as PiB says, your arguments are well put, thought-out etc.
but, once again:- if we are such an annoyance to you that you find our discourse disgusts you,then why the fuck do you come here?
why bother,if we are all such braying half-wits ,to even try and convince us of your arguments?
you must be a right billy-no-mates if you have to spend unfulfilling time arguing with people as unworthy of your brilliant mind as us
Well I was handsome and I was strong
And I knew the words to every song.
"Did my singing please you?"
"No! The words you sang were wrong!"
I had hoped that the "youse R thik" stuff would stop, it would make Sultan's posts a lot shorter and increase the quality 500%. Because as Ive already said, he's obviously and intelligent fellow. I just wish there was less of this almost peacock-like display of well-read-ness and antagonism to those deemed less intellectually able...
but if we're still debating the intelligence (or lack therof of HLanders, i'll step out of the ring and have a snooze until we can talk like big people.
There's a man with a mullet going mad with a mallet in Millets
sultan2075 wrote:Spell correctly if you want to be taken seriously in writing. That's the way of the world, get used to it. No one is going to hire you, for example--regardless of your qualifications for a given job--if your cover letter begins 'I'm am havening of an interesting for job.'
sultan2075 also wrote:the Urban Homsetead Act for low-income families
eastmidswhizzkid wrote:It was the fact that we have HL members who really think that the rest of us are all thick,crass, and downright stupid.
but the problem is that some of us actually are superior to the common herd. should we dumb down to fit in or use our gifts for the common good and try to raise the rest of you to a more enlightened world view?
"contradictions are meaningless, there's nothing to betray"
eastmidswhizzkid wrote:It was the fact that we have HL members who really think that the rest of us are all thick,crass, and downright stupid.
but the problem is that some of us actually are superior to the common herd. should we dumb down to fit in or use our gifts for the common good and try to raise the rest of you to a more enlightened world view?
And I was looking forward to RicheyJames weighing in on this thread. Now I just feel stoopid.
A man who spent four days sitting on his pampered ar$e while people were dying in New Orleans? But what the fcuk, right? They were only poor people and blacks, they're never going to vote Republican are they?
mark, you're not by any means the only one , but once again, you've made a complete tit of yourself
Yeah guess so. Having read more, I freely admit I jumped in with a lazy and ill-informed post. Go figure. Too much of the "type-first-and-think-later" syndrome. What mrs fiend calls "keyboard heroics".
Anyway.
I'm interested in this idea:
sultan2075 wrote:Well, I'd agree that everyone has rights. The question is, what are those rights derived from? For example, Western (i.e. European and American) political systems are based on the position that human beings have rights derivable from Nature, Nature's God or the Biblical God (cf. Locke, St. Thomas Aquinas, the American Federalist Papers, etc). Post-modernism rejects all of those as possible standards, hence the institutions built on them have become unstable--thus, human rights or political rights are arbitrary rather than natural. Western political life is ultimately predicated on the idea of Natural right. When you do away with that idea, you get exactly what Nietzsche predicted: the will to power becomes the only thing remotely resembling a principle.
I agree that post-modernism is a difficulty; but it's not confined to Europe by any stretch. The USA is a country where almost a half of the population believes that the Genesis myth of creation in six days in 4004BC is literally true. That so many people seem to feel they can happily ignore what scientific evidence tells them because it contradicts their religious dogma is as much a symptom of the post-modern "all viewpoints have equal validity" idea as is the rejection of objective standards for human morality.
The erosion of Church-state separation in the USA is worrying, especially as we here in the UK have no such principle (indeed the Queen is "defender of the faith" and Supreme Governor of the Church of England) and successive British governments have been keen to secure the UK's "favoured nation" status by a process of "monkey-see monkey-do" to the US's policies. We're already seeing Vardy Foundation schools in this country that are teaching creationism and "intelligent design" in science classes.
sultan2075 wrote:As for the War on Terror...I rather suspect that's something that has been coming for a long time. AQ is simply the most recent manifestation of a sort of apocalypse-minded militant Islam that was allowed to metastasize due to to a lack of attention from the West
When it comes to that, I personally find Bush's Christianity as much a threat as the radical Islam of Al-Qaida, perhaps more so. He espouses the fundamentalist view that we are living in the end-times and I'm almost convinced that Bush sees the "War On Terror" as some kind of fulfilment of the "prophecies" in Revelation. Even if Bush doesn't see it this way, many of the prominent Christian commentators do. It's certainly the case that once the cold-war boogeyman of Communism was dead, the US needed a new one; Islamism and Al-Qaida have stepped up to the plate with alacrity.
I don't see that the "War On Terror" is truly a conflict between "the forces of good" (freedom, liberty, etc.) and "the forces of evil" (Islam). It's a conflict between two competing religious dogmas, both as authoritarian and anti-freedom as each other, just that Christianity (in its unique American flavour) has stolen the clothes of Freedom and Liberty. Those of us who hold to neither dogma are going to end up squashed in the middle.
The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.
—Bertrand Russell
But the cold war was never a clear cut 'good v evil' battle either. Whatever the evils of communist regimes (and there were many of them), the tranisition towards 'freedom' has been slow, painful and in some cases non-existent (see Transnistria, most of central Asia, Belarus and several aspects of Russian politics).
One thing that does seem clear is that in the west we greatly value our individual freedoms, coming from a democratic background. We might be somewhat complacent about them because we've had them for centuries, but ultimately this is important to us.
The communist world denied that; most of the Islamic world denies it (I can't off the top of my head put a name to a functional Islamic democracy - Turkey is the closest I can come up with though I stand to be corrected).
If we believe that democratic freedoms are important (it has been argued that freedom of expression is a basic human right) do we not have a responsibility to promote them? If necessary, should that not involve force to curb the worse excesses of some of the less attractive dictators (Mr S Hussein, for example)? Isn't this an example of the strong using their strength to help the downtrodden?
Earlier in the thread someone mentioned South Africa and Nelson Mandela. Ignoring Mandela's questionable stance on HIV in southern Africa and his tacit support of Mugabe, isn't SA a clear example of how pressure from the democratic west forced change? Would it have happened without sanctions? If sanctions weren't having an impact, would military force have been justified? If so, why can't that be applied to other nations?
The invasion of Iraq is questionable for many reasons, but to write it off as a failure at this stage is naive in the extreme. Remember the cold war analogy? We rejoiced to see the Berlin Wall come down, and many of us have been encouraged by the EU accession of countries like Poland, the Baltics, the Czechs etc.
But in 15 years we still have a number of former communist states in a political and social shambles. The Balkans weren't resolved overnight; the orange revolution in Ukraine seems a little hollow after the noble democrat Yushchenko fired his entire (democratically elected) government on an apparent whim; Lukashenka continues to rule Belarus as a kind of Stalin-world USSR theme park (albeit with a Macdonalds in Minsk). Don't get me started on the reasons why Russia isn't a functional democractic state yet.
To expect the 'war on terror' (crap name, btw, but we've discussed that before) to deliver results in the space of four years is ludicrously optimistic on this basis. But because we don't like the Americans we're demanding far higher standards from their interventions ....
. I think many of us have been guilty of this at one time or another. But if your arguments are strong surely they can stand alone without any of that?
- like Rosalie i guess you don't . 
Having read more, I freely admit I jumped in with a lazy and ill-informed post. Go figure. 
Too much of the "type-first-and-think-later" syndrome. What mrs fiend calls "keyboard heroics".