Don't equate actions with religion

[madame_zora]

Wow. Still quoting that Lancet study. You probably still think Dreyfus was guilty, too.

If you're up on your statistics, you know how bogus that Lancet crap is. Too bad, really - not long ago it was one of the best medical journals available in English. The other good one was the New England Journal of Medicine. Both have succumbed to PC bullshit in recent years. NEJM was the venue for Arthur Kellerman's bogus gun studies, which were so bad that even Congress finally noticed, and axed the CDC's budget for junk science (the source of Kellerman's funds).

But people don't know shit about statistics, or much else, it seems. Good thing we're all experts and don't need math to tell us shit from Shinola.

Well, that's YOUR opinion, no doubt confirmed by your own assesment?

You dismiss anything inconvenient as PC bullshit, but where's YOUR source?

And what if it IS overinflated, by say a hundread thousand or so? Please, find a problem with the concept that we've killed more of theirs than they've killed of ours. Please, I just can't wait.

Statistics is one of the few things I do understand. I understand how they're gathered, I understand that they're likely to represent the original premise being studied, I understand how they get funding, and even the error rates of collected data. I understand the peer-review process and even how many institutions are set up to appear more legitimate than they actually are. I'm really not completely in the dark, this point is just too easy to make to require much effort.

A statement was made by the OP that Islam is such a violent religion, and I was refuting that saying Christianity always has been and STILL fucking is. We're better organised, better armed, and far more deadly. Refute ANY of THAT statement.

 

[B_big dirigible]

Haha, that's really hilarious. Since you're completely out of responses to anything specifically I've said, why not just revert to calling me stupid and crazy? It's worked before, right?

I'm rude, loud, arrogant and inconsiderate, but I AM a person who has a lifelong committment to non-violence. In fact, I promote aggressive, non-violent non-cooperation. I don't give two shits about whose feelings I hurt, I care about making life as acceptable as possible for the most people who are here. I don't see things in terms of "their prople" and "our people", in fact I'm completely incapable of giving a shit about us and them, black or white, or who the fuck thinks they're better and more deserving.

I am a consciencious objector, I have never drawn a weapon on anyone, and have grieved every small act of violence I've committed. I decided many years ago to commit them no more as a result, I was 25. You can call me dumb all you like, and I support your right to do so, but you will NOT do so to my silence. You are far better educated than me, and I've gotten a lot from reading your posts. I've even gotten a lot from you breaking my balls about being a dancing bear, but I won't let you present the case as if that's all I bring to the table, it's just not true. I'm one of those annoying people who actually practises what they preach. Can you say the same? What do you even preach?

I didn't call you dumb. I wouldn't bother talking to you at all if I thought you were dumb.

But I start to see the problem. You are a pacifist. Well call me ol' dumbnuts once again, I'd never really picked up on that. Talk about missing the bloody obvious.

Dumbnuts. Say it again - dumbnuts. There, you deserve it.

Pardon me whilst I go kick myself in the head for a bit.

[... kicksies ...]


...


...


...


[That's better. Let that be a lesson to you. Dumbnuts.]

To me, a pacifist has determined, a priori, that nothing is actually worth fighting for.

Is that correct? If so, then no, I'm not a pacifist. I think a good number of things are worth fighting for. Even if fighting has costs and consequences; because pacifism has costs and consequences, too.

 

[madame_zora]

I read the article before I posted and interpreted it to include the deaths from sectarian violence. Our forces will have killed a portion and the Sunni/Shiite strife would account for some of the total. I believe if a Sunni walks into a Shiite mosque and detonates a bomb, he should be considered responsible for those deaths.

I read the article to be asserting that those 655,000 deaths were the excesses caused by our involvement. Either way, if we're only responsible for half that number, is that better? I mean, these are not members of the Taliban, what right do WE have to kill even one of them? They didn't do anything to us!

Are they warlike, spiteful people, these Shiites? I don't know. It's not my job to police the world. I'd rather be the one bringing in aid (food, medical care, negotiators) than guns.

 

[Gillette]

Very well, BD. Since you seem to be the only person with clarity of vision.

*poof* you're the president!

Will you continue this war in Iraq?

Please give all reasons relevant to your decision.

 

[B_big dirigible]

Very well, BD. Since you seem to be the only person with clarity of vision.

*poof* you're the president!

Will you continue this war in Iraq?

Please give all reasons relevant to your decision.

Sorry, I'm no longer enough of a "liberal" to have an easy answer for everything.

 

[Gillette]

That's it, bang that race drum, no matter what. The future is merely a slave to the past, and you'll do your damndest to keep it that way.

Do you find it convenient to upbraid only those with whom you disagree?
Did I miss your post questioning the purpose of njqt's minority flag waving?

 

[Gillette]

Sorry, I'm no longer enough of a "liberal" to have an easy answer for everything.

You are exceptionally predictable in not giving answers.

 

[madame_zora]

I didn't call you dumb. I wouldn't bother talking to you at all if I thought you were dumb.

But I start to see the problem. You are a pacifist. Well call me ol' dumbnuts once again, I'd never really picked up on that. Talk about missing the bloody obvious.

Dumbnuts. Say it again - dumbnuts. There, you deserve it.

Pardon me whilst I go kick myself in the head for a bit.

[... kicksies ...]


...


...


...


[That's better. Let that be a lesson to you. Dumbnuts.]

To me, a pacifist has determined, a priori, that nothing is actually worth fighting for.

Is that correct? If so, then no, I'm not a pacifist. I think a good number of things are worth fighting for. Even if fighting has costs and consequences; because pacifism has costs and consequences, too.

Yes, I am a pacifist, even though I loathe the word. I'm not goddamned passive about anything, I just wouldn't find anything good enough to kill a stranger over. I doubt I could kill to save my own life, but I could kill to save Julianna's. That's it. I brought her into the world, I'm responsible for what happens to her. I would easily violate my own "principles" to protect her life.

Yes, pacifism has great costs. I'm an Indian, remember? I know this. To me, if a violent act must be committed, I would prefer the sin be someone else's, not mine. Let their god judge them for their behavior, my conscience is MY issue. I am my own judge and critic, if I cannot face myself, what is it to me what the opinion is of any man on Earth? Likewise, when I am obeying what I consider a fundamental law of man to give more than I take, to consider the needs of others as part of my share, and to invest myself in building up others to see that they are deserving of the joys and gifts of life, whether they are in the mainstream or out on the fringes, then what opinion of Man could hurt me? These I hold to be the basic tenets of every great philosopher, religious leader and reformer throughout time. There's Gandhi, Gibran, Jesus, Martin Luther, Martin Luther King Jr., Swami Prabhupada and John fucking Lennon.

If you hit me, I won't hit you back. I may or may not cry like a bitch, get angry, think mean, nasty thoughts, but I won't hit you back. That would invalidate my beliefs, and no one's really all that important to me. Probably, I'll go eat Indian food and give some money to a homeless person the next day. That's just how I roll.

 

[B_big dirigible]

I read the article to be asserting that those 655,000 deaths were the excesses caused by our involvement. Either way, if we're only responsible for half that number, is that better? I mean, these are not members of the Taliban, what right do WE have to kill even one of them? They didn't do anything to us!

Yes, the article (never put online by Lancet, but it was in the Oct 30, 2004 issue) did, supposedly, blithely assert that these "excess" deaths were due to air strikes. Bombs in marketplaces didn't seem to trouble the Lancet authors unduly. How the methodology supported the article's assertions seems to have been glossed over a bit. The online critiques are of limited value - they said this - no they didn't - it's never been refuted - yes it has - ho, hum.

The obvious problem is that if you've decided that "we" are responsible for every murder committed by a terrorist, I expect those numbers will get pretty large. And will continue to grow, as the success of terrorism as a strategy encourages more participants.

 

[madame_zora]

To me, a pacifist has determined, a priori, that nothing is actually worth fighting for.

Sorry, this is a small correction, but a pacifist has determined a priori that nothing is worth killing for. There are certainly plenty of other, and better, ways to fight.

 

[madame_zora]

Yes, the article (never put online by Lancet, but it was in the Oct 30, 2004 issue) did, supposedly, blithely assert that these "excess" deaths were due to air strikes. Bombs in marketplaces didn't seem to trouble the Lancet authors unduly. How the methodology supported the article's assertions seems to have been glossed over a bit. The online critiques are of limited value - they said this - no they didn't - it's never been refuted - yes it has - ho, hum.

The obvious problem is that if you've decided that "we" are responsible for every murder committed by a terrorist, I expect those numbers will get pretty large. And will continue to grow, as the success of terrorism as a strategy encourages more participants.

Okay, so what if you're the biggest doubter of all time, how many would you then say we've killed? How many in armies, and how many civilians?

Perhaps you can understand why I don't care much about the credibility of the exact numbers. Our reasons for killing any of them just aren't good enough. What are our reasons supposed to be now, anyway?

edit- I object vehemently to calling everyone in Iraq a terrorist, and I'm saying the killings committed by OUR soldiers are something that the world could do without. This is NOT a eye for a eye, these people are NOT the fucking Taliban!

 

[B_big dirigible]

Do you find it convenient to upbraid only those with whom you disagree?
Did I miss your post questioning the purpose of njqt's minority flag waving?

It didn't strike me as particularly egregious - that is, to the point of interfering with the sense of the post.

Example. If someone was discussing, say, the current legal status of gambling on reservations, and tried to bolster one side or another by raising the fact that in 1619 the Powhatans staged a surprise attack and massacred about a third of the Jamestown colonists, he should be taken to task for it. It's an interesting fact, and true enough, but its connection to modern gambling policy is tenuous. If he wanted to bring in the possibility that Abramoff had ripped off some Indians who were trying to lobby for legislation in their favor, that, while not directly relevant to gambling, could have some reasonable bearing on the matter. So whether past abuses by or of our aboriginals have a bearing on the question at hand depends on the details.

 

[fluoro]

I read the article to be asserting that those 655,000 deaths were the excesses caused by our involvement. Either way, if we're only responsible for half that number, is that better? I mean, these are not members of the Taliban, what right do WE have to kill even one of them? They didn't do anything to us!

Are they warlike, spiteful people, these Shiites? I don't know. It's not my job to police the world. I'd rather be the one bringing in aid (food, medical care, negotiators) than guns.

I agree with you, it shouldn't be our job to police the world and I think aid can be far more effective than guns in most situations. I feel like our government precipitated a civil war and should have foreseen this possibility. I have often wondered if this was just a blunder on the part of the Bush administration, or if the further destabilization of the middle east is a part of a larger strategy. Either way, many Iraqis have zealously participated in the killing sprees and they shouldn't be absolved of responsibility for their atrocities.

 

[B_big dirigible]

edit- I object vehemently to calling everyone in Iraq a terrorist, and I'm saying the killings committed by OUR soldiers are something that the world could do without. This is NOT a eye for a eye, these people are NOT the fucking Taliban!

Who calls everyone in Iraq a terrorist? Rather a lot of them are victims of terrorists. I don't even have that much against the Taliban, as long they're just a religion.

 

[B_big dirigible]

Sorry, this is a small correction, but a pacifist has determined a priori that nothing is worth killing for. There are certainly plenty of other, and better, ways to fight.

There comes a point at which the other ways are no longer better. In fact at some point they cease to be fighting at all, and become surrender and defeat. Recognizing that point is the hard part, and not just for pacifists.

So the question was just postponed, not eliminated - what is worth fighting for, when the fighting gets serious? I still think some things are.

 

[B_big dirigible]

You are exceptionally predictable in not giving answers.

As long as you demand quick and easy answers, I'll doubtless remain predictable in refusing to give them.

 

[Gillette]

It didn't strike me as particularly egregious - that is, to the point of interfering with the sense of the post.

While this post may explain your objection to what you believe is an irrelevantly cited event, your original reply to AG's post took her to task for playing the race card.

Here, read it again.
http://www.lpsg.org/814637-post34.html

What you fail to aknowledge, because it doesn't suit your purpose to do so, is that the post addresses the fact that njqt, as a black woman (something she took the effort to point out herself), should be well aware of terrorism perpetuated in her own backyard that has nothing whatsoever to do with radical fundementalist muslims.

And that point is perfectly relevant to this thread.

 

[B_big dirigible]

Yes, I am a pacifist, even though I loathe the word. I'm not goddamned passive about anything, I just wouldn't find anything good enough to kill a stranger over. I doubt I could kill to save my own life, but I could kill to save Julianna's. That's it. I brought her into the world, I'm responsible for what happens to her. I would easily violate my own "principles" to protect her life.

So, you believe that your civic responsibilites extend to your clan, but no further.

I see no problem in extending the principle further. In fact it's a good thing that somebody extends it, or we'd all be fighting all day to keep marauders away from our crops. It would be appropriate for an active and engaged member of society to protect a stranger from a lethal predator, and to use whatever force necessary to do so; and no apologies need be made for doing it. In this scenario, apologies would be needed after refusing to use appropriate force.

Civilization is beset on all sides by predators - common criminals, or on the larger scale, enemies foreign and domestic. The individual can do his part to defend it from the predators, or he can sit back and let someone else do the heavy lifting. Hitting the right balance is admittedly tricky, as it can easily lead to vigilantism. But it's not obvious that there's any great virtue in simply dodging the problem entirely just because it's difficult.

 

[B_big dirigible]

While this post may explain your objection to what you believe is an irrelevantly cited event, your original reply to AG's post took her to task for playing the race card.

Here, read it again.
http://www.lpsg.org/814637-post34.html

What you fail to aknowledge, because it doesn't suit your purpose to do so, is that the post addresses the fact that njqt, as a black woman (something she took the effort to point out herself), should be well aware of terrorism perpetuated in her own backyard that has nothing whatsoever to do with radical fundementalist muslims.

And that point is perfectly relevant to this thread.

Hardly. The purported existence of other terrorists or criminals has nothing at all to do with the existence of Islamic terrorists. Hence, the crimson-tinted piscine aspect of the post.

 

[Gillette]

Quote:

Neither your post nor America's presence in Iraq is logical. Unless you want to compare America's "reaction" to a child who's just been bullied turning on the next smaller kid and beating him just because he can.

America's presence in Iraq is entirely logical. Whether it's a good idea is another and somewhat more complex matter.

People who haven't managed to grasp the logic invariably insist that there isn't any. And that represents a failure not only of logic but of imagination.

Here's another example of your conveiniently picking only what suits you.

Read in it's entirety it should be pretty clear that my meaning is that America's presence in Iraq is illogical based on a reasoning that it was a reaction to 9/11.

Crafty, clever and opportunistic of you to take that sentence of mine and present it as a stand alone statement for you to pick apart.

You want to challenge other people for relevance to the subject of the thread? At no point yet have I seen your response to the OP.

Try it, just for the sake of relevance.
C'mon.