War...get it over with already.

[kami]

Just one thing Bucc, I don't think the Turks minded all that much about the French veto, they don't seem to want the Americans there now anyway do they?

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Bucc, you've not paid any attention to my reasons for having my views.  You can't determine anything by just looking at the views without looking at the reason.  I've laid out exactly why I think those boycotting French goods are idiots.

You say my support of protesting the war but not supporting boycotting French goods is because of being completely stuck on one side.  Look at the two though.  I would have no problem with people protesting the French politics just like I support protesting the war.  But I don't support the boycott because it hurts French citizens for the action of the government which is no more justified than like I said, terrorists killing American citizens because they dislike the US government.  You continue to claim that I don't support my points or that they are blindly one way, yet you are the one who is blind in ignoring the support I provide.  That is why Loud and I have an issue with your quoting.  You don't respons to the whole commentary you reply to a point and don't realize that the point is not something that is to stand on its own but only as part of the whole argument.  And so by picking quotes rather than replying to the whole argument you aren't able to make any worthwhile objection to our stance.

You claim you are belittling weak arguments not those that you don't agree with.  An argument is like a house, it has support as a house has walls.  Taken by themseleves the walls are not a house, but when together they make a solid house.  What you are doing it taking the individual walls and telling us it is not a house.  What you need to do is look at the walls together and see the house and tell us if you think it is a nice house.  We are providing houses for you, you need to stop looking only at the walls.

[tasty]

Tasty, maybe you need to put in the "at any price" part.  Do I think that peace at any price is wrong, absolutely.  I don't think it's worth being a slave in order to have peace.  You see, the "peace at any price" people, being on an extreme, blind themselves as much as any war hawk.

Oh, and I used the word blind, not stupid Tasty.

Here's a quote from a couple weeks ago (the patriot act argument I believe):

Anyone that craves peace at any price is just as much of an asshole.  Living at one extreeme or the other is just stupid.

So yes, apparently you think people with strong moral convictions are stupid. And I don't really think they are blind either, it's merely a value judgment. Some would rather die than kill. And unlike the beliefs of "war hawks", their values aren't intentionally harmful.

[jn.loudnotes]

Buccaneer, I suppose I'm responding to the same sentiment Tasty just expressed.  When you are belittling these so-called "weak" arguments, you do so without respect for the poster, and the argument as a whole.  I have nothing against creative us of language, but reread your last post and tell me you DON'T sound impossibly condescending.  

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Tasty, maybe you need to put in the "at any price" part.  Do I think that peace at any price is wrong, absolutely.  I don't think it's worth being a slave in order to have peace.  You see, the "peace at any price" people, being on an extreme, blind themselves as much as any war hawk.

Oh, and I used the word blind, not stupid Tasty.

Here's a quote from a couple weeks ago (the patriot act argument I believe):

Anyone that craves peace at any price is just as much of an asshole.  Living at one extreeme or the other is just stupid.

So yes, apparently you think people with strong moral convictions are stupid. And I don't really think they are blind either, it's merely a value judgment. Some would rather die than kill. And unlike the beliefs of "war hawks", their values aren't intentionally harmful.

Tasty, you again take a quote out of it's full context.  Do you write for the liberal media?  Cause you could.  Notice the "just as much".  As in, there was more too it.  

And there you go putting in "strong moral convictions".  Please stop putting words in my mouth.  There are plenty of "strong moral convictions" besides peace at any price, aren't there?  So if you want the "for dummies" version, I'll say it very clear.  

People that believe in peace at any price are just as stupid as people that believe war is always the best answer.

And peace at any price doesn't just mean your own life.  The price could mean things I'd find even worse.  Anyone that thinks violence is never necessary in our world is just as wrong as the person that thinks it's always a good answer.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Just one thing Bucc, I don't think the Turks minded all that much about the French veto, they don't seem to want the Americans there now anyway do they?

Kami, the Turks are still upset by it, or haven't you read anything from them.  Btw, the veto that France (and other) did had absolutely nothing to do with Americans being there.

On top of that, the Turkish government has said they want Americans there, they have just been backing down to some of the demonstrations.  Look at both sides of it Kami.

But I don't support the boycott because it hurts French citizens for the action of the government which is no more justified than like I said, terrorists killing American citizens because they dislike the US government.  

And that right there is where you are wrong Bondo.  They are nothing alike.

Americans don't owe anything to the French.  So, our purchasing of their goods is boost to them.  By us choosing not to, it's applying public pressure, just like their demonstrations.  It's not even really political pressure yet, because it's not like the government has raised tariffs or anything.  Not only that, but how many countries out there tax incoming American products fair (compared to our tariffs)?  So, it's not the responsibility of the USA or it's citizens to support any other countries economy.  And by "protesting with my wallet", I'm showing France the same thing it has shown me.

It's very justified.  And it's peaceful.

And to use your wall analogy, your house can't stand if the walls are weak.  Doesn't matter how many of them there are, if they are too week, the house just wont stand.

[tasty]

Bucc, please explain how I took anything you said out of context. Because I don't think I did. You say notice the "just as" part, as if this is indicative of me taking your quotes out of context. So here is the entire thing:

There are valid reasons for violence and war.  I'm not the one preaching for peace at any price.  Anyone that likes war is an asshole.  Anyone that craves peace at any price is just as much of an asshole.  Living at one extreeme or the other is just stupid.

How again does this change the meaning of what you said? Is it somehow supposed to make your assertions about the stupidity of those "assholes" who support "peace at any price" more acceptable because you said the same about those who like war? And as if you didn't already have enough generalizations in your post, you threw in the liberal media schtick.

Yes, I also asserted that that pacifists had strong moral convictions. How is this putting words in your mouth? I never wrote anything about you saying they had strong moral convictions. Yes, there are plenty of strong moral convictions besides those of pacifists. But that doesn't change the fact that pacifists have strong moral convictions. Then you give the "for dummies" version, since I must have been too stupid to understand what you said. You proceed to repeat the same thing you said before.

Although I oppose violence to solve problems in almost every situation, I recognize that occasionally force must be used. Some people believe in different philosophies, religions, or moral frameworks than I do and believe that violence is never the answer. This does not make them stupid. I'm sure there are pacifists out there that have higher IQs than either of us. I admire them, you don't; that's fine. You can think they are wrong without insulting them or their intelligence though, and that's the point.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Bucc, you can't say my point is weak when you miss it so badly.

Tell me how exactly boycotting French goods doesn't hurt French citizens?  Tell me exactly how the boycott isn't based on actions of the French government.  Seeing as you won't be able to tell me either since depriving money from the citizens does hurt them, and the boycott is because of actions of the government, tell me how my statement that it is an action that punishes the citizens for actions of the government isn't correct?

And if that is correct which I'm sure it is, how is punishing of citizens for actions of the government different from punishing citizens for the actions of the government?  Obviously they aren't different since they are the exact same thing.

You also completely missed the wall analogy Bucc.  It was about not being able to judge the house based on its parts, it is more than a sum of its parts.  Thus when you take one line of the argument and critisize the argument based on it, you are judging the house based on one of its parts.  The point is, look at the whole fucking argument and not just one line.  The point I've tried to tell you numerous times, the point that Loud has tried to tell you numerous times, the point you just seem to fail to grasp.

[kami]

Kami, the Turks are still upset by it, or haven't you read anything from them.  Btw, the veto that France (and other) did had absolutely nothing to do with Americans being there.

On top of that, the Turkish government has said they want Americans there, they have just been backing down to some of the demonstrations.  Look at both sides of it Kami.

The NATO forces that would have been sent to reinforce their defence (that was never under threat anyway) would probably have been mostly American...

And then, the Turkish government backed down to the will of the parliament (the people), not because of the demonstrations.

[jn.loudnotes]

I suppose if you fail to quote a statement, that means you agree with it Buccaneer?  

Try responding to me or anyone else without quoting anything, just once Bucc.  And don't refer to exact statements either.  Just attack the "house" as a whole. . .if it didn't stand alone you wouldn't have the need to pick apart the walls.

[EUR_Zaitsev]

Those boycotting french goods reserve that right however I will not be excercising it. To boycott people who stand up for peace is simply....idiotic (for lack of a better word). At any rate The turks have reason not to let us through, they would be attacked by other middle east countries if they let us through and thus subject to terror.


Sorry if i post this twice i have an add on.

CLASHING VIEW OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION

<>iraq is not cooperating with the UN but if the UN doesnt agree with war we will attack anyway, NOW whose not co operating

[|MP|Buccaneer]

How again does this change the meaning of what you said? Is it somehow supposed to make your assertions about the stupidity of those "assholes" who support "peace at any price" more acceptable because you said the same about those who like war?

Yes, it is.  Also, I was talking about in your first post, you quoted me, and then said I called them stupid, but in the quote you posted, I called them blind.  So you used one quote, while commenting from another.  Catching on yet?

Yes, I also asserted that that pacifists had strong moral convictions. How is this putting words in your mouth? I never wrote anything about you saying they had strong moral convictions. Yes, there are plenty of strong moral convictions besides those of pacifists. But that doesn't change the fact that pacifists have strong moral convictions. Then you give the "for dummies" version, since I must have been too stupid to understand what you said. You proceed to repeat the same thing you said before.

Tasty, here's you putting words in my mouth:
     Bucc - People that believe in peace at any price are just as blind as people who think war is always the answer.
     Tasty - So you are saying that anyone with strong moral convictions is blind?

I wasn't talking about all people with "strong moral convictions", you were.  You were throwing my context into general categories while I was being specific about them.  And you continue here.  I'm not talking about all pacifists either.  After all, Sgt York (you know, most decorated US soldier from WW1) was a pacifist.  Pacifist doesn't mean peace at any price.  Pacifist is subjective, with levels.  After all, there are physical pacifists that believe in verbal abuse like you wouldn't believe.  There are pacifists that think violence is ok, but not killing.  Some that believe all killing, of even a tiny bug is wrong.  So, don't twist what I'm saying.  

I'm saying that some people believe in peace at any price.  They are every bit as wrong (call it blind, call it asshole, call it anything, doesn't matter, just call them the same) as the war mongers.  

What's the difference between peace at any price and others?  

"There is no excuse, ever for going to war.  No matter what they do, you can't let the people suffer."

"I don't believe that Iraq is a threat yet, we shouldn't risk war and the after effects until we have exhausted every effort to solve this peacefully."

Big difference between the two.  The second quote, the person is actually thinking about the costs, to EVERYONE, and understands that sometimes violence, while bad, is necessary.  The first quote has blinded themselves to any other options.  Not looking, listening or reasoning.  They have made up their mind that peace at any price is the answer.

The world isn't a non-violent place.  And sometimes, violence is required to stop greater violence.  Otherwise, we go back to anarchy, with whoever is the biggest and strongest takes what they want, because nobody thinks it's worth stopping them.

This does not make them stupid. I'm sure there are pacifists out there that have higher IQs than either of us. I admire them, you don't; that's fine. You can think they are wrong without insulting them or their intelligence though, and that's the point.

Fuck 'em.  I insult their lack of common sense openly.  High IQ doesn't always mean wisdom, does it?  

First, anyone that blinds themselves to the other side of the argument isn't that intelligent.  If you can't look at both sides, and accept that your side may not be right, you just aren't that smart.  

You'd be very interested to know that people that are extreme pacifists test very much like people that are terrorists.  They both have their faith, their strong convictions, and are unwilling to see the other side.  Look up studies about how much cops and criminals have in common.  They are opposite sides of the same coin in so many ways.  

Second, I know PhD's that are smart as all get out, that can't keep their checkbook balanced.  That have no common sense at all.  High IQ, low Wisdom.  They aren't the same thing.

So I see your point, and my point is, I can disagree, and insult them =D.  

[|MP|Buccaneer]

The NATO forces that would have been sent to reinforce their defence (that was never under threat anyway) would probably have been mostly American...

And then, the Turkish government backed down to the will of the parliament (the people), not because of the demonstrations.

Kami, you are confusing more then one thing there.

The NATO Veto we are talking about had NOTHING AT ALL to do with sending troops into Turkey.  NOT A DAMN THING.  It was a call for planning in case of invasion BY IRAQ.  Not a call for preperations.  Not a call for aid.  Not a call for anything but PLANNING.

That's what pisses me, and many other off about it.  

[|MP|Buccaneer]

I suppose if you fail to quote a statement, that means you agree with it Buccaneer?  

Try responding to me or anyone else without quoting anything, just once Bucc.  And don't refer to exact statements either.  Just attack the "house" as a whole. . .if it didn't stand alone you wouldn't have the need to pick apart the walls.

Nope, and fuck off.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Those boycotting french goods reserve that right however I will not be excercising it. To boycott people who stand up for peace is simply....idiotic

To say that is to ignore what the people protesting are talking about Zaitsev.  It's not France's want for peace that has pissed me off.  They can stay the hell out of it all they want, and it doesn't matter to me one wit.  It was France, Germany and Belgium that stopped Turkey's request for planning that pissed off many people.  They used their position in NATO against another member's request to jab at the US.  That was very very wrong in my opinion.  And many others.  

So the only think idiotic is not listening to what they are bitching about Zaitsev.  

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Bucc, you can't say my point is weak when you miss it so badly.

Bondo, I didn't miss the point you were trying to make.  I completely, wholeheartedly disagreed with it.  What part of my post didn't you understand?

And if that is correct which I'm sure it is, how is punishing of citizens for actions of the government different from punishing citizens for the actions of the government?  Obviously they aren't different since they are the exact same thing.

Bondo, I made that very clear.  I'll try a different way.  There's a store down the street from me.  The owner is convicted of child molestation.  He's out on bail, pending appeal.  Now, I can:

A) Continue to shop there and support the bastards legal fees.
B) Protest with my wallet, and take my business elsewhere.
C) Take my shotgun in the store, blow away the place, including the clerks that work there.

B would be my answer.  I chose to no longer support them.  Peaceful.  Easy.  Yes, the clerks may hurt because many customers are lost, and it's not directly their fault, but they do still work for the bastard, and in this case, support his little sickness that he just needs help with.

C, that would be the terrorist response.  

Don't keep trying to make B and C sound alike Bondo.  Because that's what you are doing.  Implying that the rational is the same, while ignoring the level of response.  

Get it yet?

You also completely missed the wall analogy Bucc.  It was about not being able to judge the house based on its parts, it is more than a sum of its parts.  Thus when you take one line of the argument and critisize the argument based on it, you are judging the house based on one of its parts.  The point is, look at the whole fucking argument and not just one line.  The point I've tried to tell you numerous times, the point that Loud has tried to tell you numerous times, the point you just seem to fail to grasp.

LOL.  Because you and Loud are WRONG.  That's why.

I know that logic isn't your strong suit, but try to follow.  If you make a false premise, then your conclusion is not supported.  Just one false premise in a whole argument is all it takes.  

And yes, I got your house analogy, but you still don't see where it tracks.  If there was a need for a load bearing wall in the plans, and that wall isn't there (or is in the wrong place, not to spec, whatever, if it's WRONG), then the house will fall down.  The analogy fits, and so does my use of it.  

One last thing, I usually take many, many lines of your arguments apart Bondo, not just one.  Don't flatter yourself.

[kami]

Kami, you are confusing more then one thing there.

The NATO Veto we are talking about had NOTHING AT ALL to do with sending troops into Turkey.  NOT A DAMN THING.  It was a call for planning in case of invasion BY IRAQ.  Not a call for preperations.  Not a call for aid.  Not a call for anything but PLANNING.

That's what pisses me, and many other off about it.  

Ok, I probably misunderstood the situation but still, why would they want to plan for defense against a nation that has no invasion forces? It would also have been seen as a step in the direction of war anyway. I don't understand why this would piss so many people off, it's just logical imo.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Bucc, your analogy to put it gently sucks ass.  I am talking about the punishing of people for the actions of a government and you suggest the example of punishing a shopowner for the actions of the shopowner.  In my example you punish one person for the actions of another, in your example you punish the person for the actions by that person.  Since the examples are completely different, I'd be fine with you choosing to punish the shopowner.

Also, I never said the actions of killing vs. boycotting were the same.  But the target of punishing some for the actions of the government ARE the same in both cases, even if one is a worse action to result from it.  Sorry, but you haven't disproven anything about my stance Bucc, you continue to skirt the issue without providing anything.

Bucc, you STILL don't get my house example.  It has nothing to do with the strength of the walls.  It simply has to do with a wall not being a house.  I'm not talking about strength of arguments, I'm saying that you can only judge a house based on the house, not on its parts.

Anyway, I guess I'm just wrong, Loud is just wrong, Zait is just wrong, kami is just wrong, and tasty is just wrong.  We are all completely mistaken in our statements because you disagree, and of course you hold all the knowledge in the world.  Sorry, but I won't hold back from being absolute, you DO piss on anybody that disagrees with you.

[jn.loudnotes]

Hmm.  Does your latest 1000-words not reinforce the point I've been trying to get across Bucc?  I simply don't have the time or energy to itemize a response of what is wrong with each sentence you said.  I'll take it that "fuck off" was part of a whole. . .it doesn't exactly stand well on it's own does it?

But you know what?  If you persist in debating this way - the online equivalent of shouting down your opponent - you're not going to have much of anyone to debate with.  I fully expect you to be able to respond to what I'm writing here.  But the how the hell is anyone supposed to synthesize your dissertation into a coherent argument that can be nitpicked?  It can hardly be done - how do you nitpick the nitpicking?  You haven't even come up with any original argument that anyone else could decimate - you've focused only on attacking others'.

So. . .if I were to "fuck off" then what?  You win?  Congratulations.  Personally I use this board to test my own ideas against the opinions of others.  I'm not quite sure what you use it for. . .  

It's fully possible to have debate, which involves at least two parties responding, without any one party completely silencing the other.  That's not the point of this.  Or if it is to you, you're in the wrong place.

[Cobra]

Bucc, your analogy to put it gently sucks ass.? I am talking about the punishing of people for the actions of a government and you suggest the example of punishing a shopowner for the actions of the shopowner.? In my example you punish one person for the actions of another, in your example you punish the person for the actions by that person.? Since the examples are completely different, I'd be fine with you choosing to punish the shopowner.

Errr...Bondo, I think Bucc's analogy is actually quite good, and that you may have missed something...

You say that in your example, one person is being punished for the actions of another, while in Bucc's analogy no one but the offender is punished.  Did you read this sentence from Bucc's post??

Yes, the clerks may hurt because many customers are lost, and it's not directly their fault, but they do still work for the bastard, and in this case, support his little sickness that he just needs help with.

Seems like that sentence addresses your problem with his analogy...someone being "punished" for the actions of another.  Might wanna revise your argument on that one.