Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Terrorists and Right-Thinking people; what do they share?

Terrorists and Right-Thinking people; what do they share?
Thread Tools
SimpleLife
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2005, 09:33 AM
 
What do terrorists and the Western world share in terms of values, beliefs?
Specifically, we saw a trend where Right-wing/Conservative appear to be more prone to radical action whilst the "left" is accused of appeasing-lovers.

In another thread, there was quite an exchange between Spliffdaddy and christ.

It gave me this idea of starting this thread on that very topic.

So, what do you think? What do we share with terrorists? What do we have in common?
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2005, 09:43 AM
 
Neither the right nor the left has much of anything in common with terrorists.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2005, 09:48 AM
 
The belief that they are right and everyone else is wrong

The belief that their way of life is under attack and that they must defend it at all costs
     
CreepingDeth
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Interstellar Overdrive
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2005, 09:54 AM
 
*Head explodes*
     
Taliesin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2005, 09:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by tie
Neither the right nor the left has much of anything in common with terrorists.
Actually there is very much in common, both are humans that happen to live on the planet earth, are breathing the same air, drinking the same water and bleeding in the same colour.

If you are talking about political or military concepts, in the former case they share a lot of ideas with christian fundamentalists, while in the latter case they share a lot with the airforce and secret agencies like the CIA and with Pentagon's paramilitary-units.

Taliesin
     
SimpleLife  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2005, 11:13 AM
 
Sherwin:
There's not a sane, right-thinking one of us who wouldn't gut the perps with a rusty spoon.
Spliffdaddy:
Instead of killing Islamic terrorists you can always simply appease them. A good start is to no longer allow women the right to vote in your country. Then you'll need to condemn same-sex marriage. There's a myriad of things you need to do in order to satisfy the Islamic terrorists. They aren't happy with your Western ways. So cover up those women! Cease with creating 'art'. Toss aside any notion of praying to a different God. Abide by the Islamic laws - or face death.

The Western liberals should be leading the fight against terrorists....they've got more to lose than conservatives do. Heck, darn near every liberal ideal stands in direct conflict with Islam.

Whoa. It just occurred to me that the Islamic terrorists are upset with LIBERALS. Liberals caused the problem, as usual.
christ:
Follow this chain of thought just a little longer Spliff - and you arrive at the fact that the radical hawkish western conservatives and the Islamist terrorists apparently share several traits.
A lot (maybe most) terrorist leaders introduce religion into their rhetoric, to drum up support from 'the masses'. but terrorism is almost exclusively targetted at political ends, not religious objectives.

This is also true of world leaders, who also introduce religion into their rhetoric in order to give some sort of 'blessing' to what they do - e.g. GWB and Tony Blair
I just recovered my abilities to paste. Here are some of the nuggets from the London Bombing thread. I thought the exchanges lead to a new realm of thinking regarding terrorism, at least, not approached that way. Some of use believe the use of violence is always necessary to counter extremists (i.e. terrorists as well as the Bush supporters now) while others will see in the use of violence a last resort (apparently).

The tactics appear to differ (bombing from a distance or urban warfare, or suicide bombing) but casualities appear higher on the side of the Coalition (the so-called "West") yet terrorism is deemed less effective since it triggers more violence anyway. But interventions by the U.S. Coalition is also a factor in the increase of this violence although for how long that depends of "success" (i.e. depending as well of the definition we give to "success").

Speeches are not that different; both are engaged and passionate (publicly at least) and use a language understandable by the followers, i.e. coherent culturally. Both parties make claims that apparently justifies either their positions or actions.

There are differences as well. One party does not have the means of the other though, so startegies have to reflect the paucity of the means (Powell used the expression of "weapons of the poor" iirc whilst the West is drowned in a technology that has evolved to highs of complexity but has not provided many results besides the impressive display of money and skills involved.
     
CreepingDeth
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Interstellar Overdrive
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2005, 11:26 AM
 
Stupid thread. Never once met a Christian as paternalistic as the goals of an Islamist. You are high if you think otherwise. This is just as moronic as a Hitler comparison. Besides, both liberals and conservatives alike both favor cleavage.

And BTW, lack of violence≠peace. Get that through your head.

Round of applause for tie. He made sense today.
     
bikes
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2005, 08:22 PM
 
well, im not sure if i would separate terrorists from figures in western civilization, there are plenty of western figures who were (and are) terrorists. In my opinion anyone who kills another can be called a terrorist, war and terrorism are inseparable, they are on in the same.
( Last edited by bikes; Jul 9, 2005 at 08:23 PM. Reason: spelling...)
     
SimpleLife  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2005, 08:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by CreepingDeth
Stupid thread.
Your are allowed your opinions. Then why participate?

Never once met a Christian as paternalistic as the goals of an Islamist.
Care to expand?

You are high if you think otherwise.
Again, welcome to the world of opinions!

This is just as moronic as a Hitler comparison. Besides, both liberals and conservatives alike both favor cleavage.
All men do, even muslims.

And BTW, lack of violence≠peace.
How so?

Get that through your head.
Please help by expanding on the topic rather than by evading it.

Round of applause for tie. He made sense today.
Funny; he is denying any type of relationships, yet lots have found a couple.
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2005, 08:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by CreepingDeth
Stupid thread. Never once met a Christian as paternalistic as the goals of an Islamist. You are high if you think otherwise. This is just as moronic as a Hitler comparison.
There actually are a few 'Christian' terrorist groups,though not many. I put 'Christian' in quotes not because of their singularly un-Christian behavior (though they're certainly guilty of that), but because these groups explicitly identify themselves as Christian groups. There are other groups which don't identify themselves as explicitly Christian but happen to be largely made up of Christians, but this post isn't really concerned with them.

These groups don't tend to get a lot of press, but the (arguably) most famous one calls itself the Army of God. Their usual M.O. is the bombing of abortion clinics, and they claim responsibility for a fair number of these. They have a Website whose URL should be obvious, but I will not link to it here. If you intend to find it anyway, I strongly suggest turning off images in your browser before doing so.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
Sherwin
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2005, 09:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by SimpleLife
I thought the exchanges lead to a new realm of thinking regarding terrorism, at least, not approached that way. Some of use believe the use of violence is always necessary to counter extremists (i.e. terrorists as well as the Bush supporters now) while others will see in the use of violence a last resort (apparently).
I believe that the only difference between the left and right with regard to this is as follows:

The left wish to use violence only as a last resort.

The right also only wish to use violence as a last resort (we'd much rather be admiring the aforementioned cleavage) - but believe that we are already in last resort territory.

That's certainly how I look at it. I hate violence (even towards dumb animals - I'm hardcore veggie) but if and when the need comes I'll engage in it without hesitation.
Unfortunately, because there's a wide variety of nuttters on this planet, in order to keep the peace one must reach for the rusty spoon more often than one would like.
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2005, 10:50 PM
 
I think the right has nads and the left are squeamish chickensh1ts.

Just kidding.

Actually, I figured out the difference several years ago.

See, liberals believe that people are inherently bad.

and conservatives believe that people are inherently good.

simple, huh?
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2005, 11:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by CreepingDeth
Stupid thread. Never once met a Christian as paternalistic as the goals of an Islamist. You are high if you think otherwise.
You don't reckon invading nations to make them more like yourself is pretty paternalistic?

Originally Posted by CreepingDeth
And BTW, lack of violence≠peace.
I think I read a book once that says you're wrong.
peace |pēs| |pis| |piːs|
noun
1. freedom from disturbance; quiet and tranquility : you can while away an hour or two in peace and seclusion.
2. freedom from or the cessation of war or violence
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
bikes
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2005, 11:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy
I think the right has nads and the left are squeamish chickensh1ts.

Just kidding.

Actually, I figured out the difference several years ago.

See, liberals believe that people are inherently bad.

and conservatives believe that people are inherently good.

simple, huh?
? Throughout history fascism has clung to Machiavellian principals pretty well. (ie. Fear, Paranoia and Oppression). While more free societies have followed Mores' ideas as illustrated in "The Utopia" (ie. Freedom). I think you have it backwards!

Machiavelli
More
( Last edited by bikes; Jul 10, 2005 at 12:29 AM. )
     
SimpleLife  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 10, 2005, 07:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy
I think the right has nads and the left are squeamish chickensh1ts.

Just kidding.

Actually, I figured out the difference several years ago.

See, liberals believe that people are inherently bad.

and conservatives believe that people are inherently good.

simple, huh?
Really? I would welcome you giving further explanation regarding your point of view. Honestly. I find it very intriguing.
     
christ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Gosport
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 10, 2005, 11:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by Millennium
There actually are a few 'Christian' terrorist groups,though not many....
The IRA?

The UFF?

They both have religion about as high on their quoted agenda as OBL has on his.
Chris. T.

"... in 6 months if WMD are found, I hope all clear-thinking people who opposed the war will say "You're right, we were wrong -- good job". Similarly, if after 6 months no WMD are found, people who supported the war should say the same thing -- and move to impeach Mr. Bush." - moki, 04/16/03
     
christ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Gosport
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 10, 2005, 11:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy
I think the right has nads and the left are squeamish chickensh1ts.

Just kidding.

Actually, I figured out the difference several years ago.

See, liberals believe that people are inherently bad.

and conservatives believe that people are inherently good.

simple, huh?
And Saddam represents the right fairly well.

I quite enjoyed this bit from the other thread, too:

Originally Posted by Sherwin
You lock [an untried suspect] up first then have a big chap smash his head against a wall publicly every day until the other fanatics get the message.


... human rights and other such leftie things are getting in the way of security. If you need to build a wall to stop things like this happening, you build a wall. If you need to completely lock down a country to stop things like this happening, you lock down the country. If you need to detain [an untried suspect] in Gitmo for three years to stop something like this happening, you detain them in Gitmo.
( Last edited by christ; Jul 10, 2005 at 12:00 PM. )
Chris. T.

"... in 6 months if WMD are found, I hope all clear-thinking people who opposed the war will say "You're right, we were wrong -- good job". Similarly, if after 6 months no WMD are found, people who supported the war should say the same thing -- and move to impeach Mr. Bush." - moki, 04/16/03
     
Sherwin
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 10, 2005, 01:25 PM
 
Nice inserts there Chris.

     
christ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Gosport
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 10, 2005, 02:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by Sherwin
Nice inserts there Chris.

If you are saying that you stll agree with the quotes that I inserted, well, of course, I wouldn't have expected you to change your mind.

If, however, you are referring to my use of "[an untried suspect]", that was not an attempt to change the sense of your original post - please correct my misunderstanding if I have inadvertently changed your meaning. Is that not exactly what you were advocating?
Chris. T.

"... in 6 months if WMD are found, I hope all clear-thinking people who opposed the war will say "You're right, we were wrong -- good job". Similarly, if after 6 months no WMD are found, people who supported the war should say the same thing -- and move to impeach Mr. Bush." - moki, 04/16/03
     
Sherwin
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 10, 2005, 04:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by christ
If, however, you are referring to my use of "[an untried suspect]", that was not an attempt to change the sense of your original post - please correct my misunderstanding if I have inadvertently changed your meaning. Is that not exactly what you were advocating?
Yep. This what I was referring to.
The second insert is acceptable.
However, the first one changed the meaning somewhat.
     
loki74
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 10, 2005, 06:59 PM
 
silly topic. There is no similarity.

"In a world without walls or fences, what need have we for windows or gates?"
     
SimpleLife  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 10, 2005, 08:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by loki74
silly topic. There is no similarity.
Of course they don't.

That would make you look so bad to share a bit of a shadow of these guys.

That they are humans, with feelings, with aspirations for a better world is beyond yourself.

Don't ghet me wrong; terrorists are criminals. But as criminals, they are acting as human beings, and what they do, so can you.

They just used that freaking way of making a point.

They bomb and they kill like hypocrits, taking people by surprise. What they cannot control, they try to destroy, because they willnever be able to get the better of this world. They are criminals with means that are minimal and they try to get attention to themselves in the most despicable way. They try to gain power in the least acceptable way; they kill civilians. For them, these deaths are necessary, for reasons of their own, as awful these can be.

Meanwhile, in Iraq, in Palestine, in Israel, in Sudan, people are killed just the same way. The military suffer a bit, but the civilians pay the price of being "in the way of justice and Peace".

How ironic...

No relationship whatsoever hey?
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 10, 2005, 10:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by SimpleLife
Meanwhile, in Iraq, in Palestine, in Israel, in Sudan, people are killed just the same way. The military suffer a bit, but the civilians pay the price of being "in the way of justice and Peace".

How ironic...

No relationship whatsoever hey?
It's O.K. for a handful of civilians (more than killed by terrorists) to sacrifice their lives (albeit unwillingly) in the name of justice and peace.
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 10, 2005, 10:21 PM
 
Theyre both obnoxous .

Bot seriously....i think they both share a lack of tolerance and empathy.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 10, 2005, 10:23 PM
 
A halmark of religious fundamentalism is a penchant for fanaticism and for being reactionary. As the fundamentalist Islamists seem to be incredibly fundamentalist, their behavior seems to us to be incredibly reactionary. Comparitively speaking, even the "Christian" terror groups here in the U.S., such as the Army of God that Millenium mentioned don't measure up to the fundamentalist Islamists.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
loki74
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 10, 2005, 11:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by SimpleLife
That they are humans, with feelings, with aspirations for a better world is beyond yourself.
ghporter makes an excellent point.

Feelings? Hate. And love for killing. Aspirations for a better world? What is a better world? One where you and me and all our countrymen are all dead? Yeah. You do know, thats what they want.

Oh and I'm not sure what you mean by "That...beyond yourself." Are you saying that stated "facts" are beyond me? I dont follow.

If youre going to play the "they're human just like you and me" game, dont try to single out right wingers. I mean, you lefties are also human. Just as vulnerable to evil acts. Typical left wing thought--you come from a higher echelon than I, dont you? Ha.

========
Hawkeye: Yeah. I'm not overly tolerant or empathetic to gay people. So I go and kill every one I can find, right? tch. I wouldnt trust a gay man with my kids, and Id be scared to enter one of their homes... but I dont think they are "infedels." I dont think they deserve to die. As long as they stay reasonable about it and dont try anything to me, I'm fine.

So you may have found a similarity in concept, but not in magnitude. And magnitude/moderation is really the main thing that matters.

"In a world without walls or fences, what need have we for windows or gates?"
     
SimpleLife  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 11, 2005, 06:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter
A halmark of religious fundamentalism is a penchant for fanaticism and for being reactionary. As the fundamentalist Islamists seem to be incredibly fundamentalist, their behavior seems to us to be incredibly reactionary. Comparitively speaking, even the "Christian" terror groups here in the U.S., such as the Army of God that Millenium mentioned don't measure up to the fundamentalist Islamists.
So in terms of intensity only they differ?

The way you put it makes me think that they are not that different...
     
SimpleLife  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 11, 2005, 06:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by loki74
ghporter makes an excellent point.

Feelings? Hate. And love for killing. Aspirations for a better world? What is a better world? One where you and me and all our countrymen are all dead? Yeah. You do know, thats what they want.
My point exactly.

Oh and I'm not sure what you mean by "That...beyond yourself." Are you saying that stated "facts" are beyond me? I dont follow.
Again, my whole point is that.

If youre going to play the "they're human just like you and me" game, dont try to single out right wingers. I mean, you lefties are also human. Just as vulnerable to evil acts. Typical left wing thought--you come from a higher echelon than I, dont you? Ha.
So far, Sherwin was closer; liberals are looking for a way, right wingers believe there's no other but violence, as it is, for them a situation of last resort. That seems a common point again!


So you may have found a similarity in concept, but not in magnitude. And magnitude/moderation is really the main thing that matters.
How moderate are you?
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 11, 2005, 09:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by loki74
Feelings? Hate. And love for killing. Aspirations for a better world? What is a better world? One where you and me and all our countrymen are all dead? Yeah. You do know, thats what they want.
I've heard many "ring-wingers" express the exact same sentiment toward them, so it appears you have uncovered another similarity.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 11, 2005, 10:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by loki74
Hawkeye: Yeah. I'm not overly tolerant or empathetic to gay people. So I go and kill every one I can find, right? tch. I wouldnt trust a gay man with my kids, and Id be scared to enter one of their homes... but I dont think they are "infedels." I dont think they deserve to die. As long as they stay reasonable about it and dont try anything to me, I'm fine.

So you may have found a similarity in concept, but not in magnitude. And magnitude/moderation is really the main thing that matters.
Yeah i totally agree. magnitude and moderation is the main distinguishing factor. But the topic is on the similarities, so i thought id share my opinion. So yeah, one group kills 3000 and the other 100,000..... i'd be insane to imply that theyre on the same level.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 11, 2005, 10:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by SimpleLife
So in terms of intensity only they differ?

The way you put it makes me think that they are not that different...
No, they're radically different. Most fundamentalist Christians, even the radical ones, are interested in a society fairly close to what we have today-except that everyone would have to belong to the fundamentalists' chosen sect. The radically fundamentalist Islamists want to go back to the 1300s-well AFTER the Islamic world had fallen from the pinacle of learning and science and gone down the slope toward internecine strife and religious persecution. True, they learned a few things from the Inquisistion, but they'd topped out and declined long before then.

They can't blame it all on the Crusades, either; the anti-secular movement had already taken root before the First Crusade started...What they want it seems is to have a world where having nothing is required, not a state of grace one seeks for oneself, or a starting point from which to strive.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
SimpleLife  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 11, 2005, 11:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter
No, they're radically different. Most fundamentalist Christians, even the radical ones, are interested in a society fairly close to what we have today-except that everyone would have to belong to the fundamentalists' chosen sect.
And how would it be the same? I really wonder how living according tot he rules of a sect is equivalent to your/our/my lifestyle.

The radically fundamentalist Islamists want to go back to the 1300s-well AFTER the Islamic world had fallen from the pinacle of learning and science and gone down the slope toward internecine strife and religious persecution. True, they learned a few things from the Inquisistion, but they'd topped out and declined long before then.

They can't blame it all on the Crusades, either; the anti-secular movement had already taken root before the First Crusade started...What they want it seems


You are not certain of what they want?

is to have a world where having nothing is required, not a state of grace one seeks for oneself, or a starting point from which to strive.
Isn't poverty something related to christianity? Wasn't Jesus encouraging everyone to leave everything behind as well?
     
Sherwin
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 11, 2005, 12:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by SimpleLife
Isn't poverty something related to christianity? Wasn't Jesus encouraging everyone to leave everything behind as well?
No. IMHO, He was encouraging us not to let material things get in the way.
The way I see it, God doesn't mind if you own a Porsche as long as you don't forget that it's just a few bits of metal and that your relationship with God, your family and friends doesn't suffer as a result of ownership.
     
SimpleLife  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 11, 2005, 04:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Sherwin
No. IMHO, He was encouraging us not to let material things get in the way.
The way I see it, God doesn't mind if you own a Porsche as long as you don't forget that it's just a few bits of metal and that your relationship with God, your family and friends doesn't suffer as a result of ownership.
Do God mind if you own a Porsche for which some parts were made in sweat shops?

How about some of your own clothes (and mine too), what if you were to discover that they were made from greed and you satisfied yourself through that greed?

I mean, we can have this stance: "We can't do anuthing about it".

But what if one might ask you what you tried to do to improve on this situation? What if we were to be questionned, at some point in our lives, about what we tried to make it better?

Would saying something like "I am only one person" be enough?

Let's go back to the hypothesis that some (not all) but some terrorists act with the perspective of seeking out justice for the abuse they have been submitted to. Can we honestly say we did everything possible to reverse the course of this cycle of violence?

Don't get me wrong: I am not talking about appeasement or forgiving criminals for their murders. They shall pay for their crime; there is not a doubt in my mind about it. I am honestly asking if we are all certain that everything has been done to prevent terrorism from happening in the first place? Can you blindly trust anyone "in charge" for having done their best in that matter?

Distance make it easy how pain and suffering can be for those submitted to it. It is only when we feel it ourselves that we gather the energy and the passion for justice. When it is far away, we don't even tolerate or accept; we just don't care.
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 11, 2005, 07:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by SimpleLife
Really? I would welcome you giving further explanation regarding your point of view. Honestly. I find it very intriguing.

OK,

liberals don't trust people to do the right thing. They believe that rules are required in order to gain compliance with their liberal agenda - which is primarily 'social programs' and other forms of wealth redistribution. After all, people would starve and die in the streets if the government didn't require taxpayers to fund social programs...right? Liberals think those greedy rich people would never willingly give anybody a dime. They think all people are evil at heart - especially if the person exhibits no hint of dishonesty under scrutiny.

I'm sure everybody has experienced the typical condescending attitude of a liberal. You know the boss who always thinks you're slacking when he's not watching you. After all, why would anybody willingly work for their income? Liberals believe that people need supervision, else they will never do the right thing.

Why do liberals think that all people are inherently bad?

Because liberals are convinced that all people are just like themselves.


Conservatives believe that all people are just like themselves, too. Hard-working, caring, and generally honest. They think that people, when unsupervised, would willingly help the needy or protect the environment - or do their job. They think that rich people have a right to keep their hard-earned money...after all, it's their money.

Conservatives want money. Everybody wants money, it seems. However, liberals want your money.
     
loki74
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 11, 2005, 07:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by SimpleLife
Do God mind if you own a Porsche for which some parts were made in sweat shops?
Nope. Not unless you own that sweat shop. Hell, youre porbably guilty of the exact same "sin" -- using a product with parts traceable to sweat shops. I am sick and tired of this hyporcritcal "sweat shop" nonsense I hear from you liberals all the time. I mean, really, their governments are to blame. Sure, our companies could not buy from them, but then they'd be in worse shape because theyd have NO money whatsoever. And if we went in to try and change those governments to make them more fair to the sweatshop victims, who would be the first one protesting it? You liberals.

So, thanks much to you liberals, there IS nothing we can do about it.

Get off of your high-horse.

===========

You really do think the typical right-winger is just a hate mongering person who loves nothing but death, while you lifties are like saits, dont you? I, like the majority of conservatives, am moderate. We didnt ask for a war. We didnt ask to be attacked. You want to give a second chance to these terrorists or something? is that your "way" that you "look for?" Like being a terrorists is some cureable disease? Ridiculous. Even if we could change them, far more lives would be lost in that process.

You liberals say that there is "always another way other than violence," but you never give ANY solutions. I would be more than willing to try to negotiate with the enemy for peace, but they dont want to negotiate. They have one objective: the death of every non-muslim/muslim who is not extreme in the world. Starting with the US. They will not negotiate. No sum of money or power will quench them unless every last one of us is dead.

If you think thats a good description for the typical right-winger, you need to get a serious reality check.

"In a world without walls or fences, what need have we for windows or gates?"
     
SimpleLife  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 11, 2005, 08:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy
OK,

liberals don't trust people to do the right thing. They believe that rules are required in order to gain compliance with their liberal agenda - which is primarily 'social programs' and other forms of wealth redistribution. After all, people would starve and die in the streets if the government didn't require taxpayers to fund social programs...right? Liberals think those greedy rich people would never willingly give anybody a dime. They think all people are evil at heart - especially if the person exhibits no hint of dishonesty under scrutiny.
LOL. OK.

But ensuring everyone is safe is necessarily wrong? What if libs just want to make sure the system is not being abused to the disadvanted of society?

I'm sure everybody has experienced the typical condescending attitude of a liberal. You know the boss who always thinks you're slacking when he's not watching you. After all, why would anybody willingly work for their income? Liberals believe that people need supervision, else they will never do the right thing.
I know liberals who fired people for good reasons and performance at work was the issue. My boss is American, she fired plenty of people, and she voted Kerry. She even asked us to pray for Bush losing. Please, try again.

Why do liberals think that all people are inherently bad?

Because liberals are convinced that all people are just like themselves.
Please explain your point better.

Conservatives believe that all people are just like themselves, too. Hard-working, caring, and generally honest. They think that people, when unsupervised, would willingly help the needy or protect the environment - or do their job. They think that rich people have a right to keep their hard-earned money...after all, it's their money.
Unfortunately, there are rich people who got rich by playing the system against the desinherited. Some got rich through abuse too. There is nothing in making money, lots of money; it's how it is done that is a concern.

Conservatives want money. Everybody wants money, it seems. However, liberals want your money.
I don't think so.
     
SimpleLife  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 11, 2005, 08:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by loki74
Nope. Not unless you own that sweat shop. Hell, youre porbably guilty of the exact same "sin" -- using a product with parts traceable to sweat shops. I am sick and tired of this hyporcritcal "sweat shop" nonsense I hear from you liberals all the time. I mean, really, their governments are to blame.
I see. You participating in a crime makes you innocent?

Sure, our companies could not buy from them, but then they'd be in worse shape because theyd have NO money whatsoever.
I see. So you are doing them a favor. Tell me, those kids in the sweat shops, are you doing them a favor too?

And if we went in to try and change those governments to make them more fair to the sweatshop victims, who would be the first one protesting it? You liberals.
Oh no! I am asking you the exact opposite! Please; make sure these government charge you more so the income level gets higher in those countries. A T-shirt will now cost you 5 times more than usual, because then, it would be fair[/quote].

So, thanks much to you liberals, there IS nothing we can do about it.
I see. You are totaless powerless. Not enough ideas, or convictions, or motivations to make a better world... It is easier to remove a defenseless dictator, Saddam Hussein, than stopping commerce with China, or South Korea, because that would hurt our Western interests abroad.

Get off of your high-horse.
Get off my horse cow-boy; the animal is due for a rest...

===========

You really do think the typical right-winger is just a hate mongering person who loves nothing but death, while you lifties are like saits, dont you? I, like the majority of conservatives, am moderate. We didnt ask for a war. We didnt ask to be attacked. You want to give a second chance to these terrorists or something? is that your "way" that you "look for?" Like being a terrorists is some cureable disease? Ridiculous. Even if we could change them, far more lives would be lost in that process.
Prove it.

You liberals say that there is "always another way other than violence," but you never give ANY solutions. I would be more than willing to try to negotiate with the enemy for peace, but they dont want to negotiate. They have one objective: the death of every non-muslim/muslim who is not extreme in the world. Starting with the US. They will not negotiate. No sum of money or power will quench them unless every last one of us is dead.
How certain are you of that? And please, stop the liberal bashing: we're all in this together; the victims in London were not all conservatives were they?

If you think thats a good description for the typical right-winger, you need to get a serious reality check.
No, I do not believe it is the right description of a right winger, nor do I think we all have the right idea about who becomes a terrorist, and why. That is the point of this thread.

But we certainly are all full of prejudice among one another about everybody else.

Again; I am not asking for negotiation with terrorists; they'll have to face justice and pay for their crimes. But I want the whole story out there,l on the table, for everyone to see. I want to make sure we did everything we could to avoid terrorism from our end.
     
Sherwin
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 11, 2005, 08:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by SimpleLife
Do God mind if you own a Porsche for which some parts were made in sweat shops?
Nope. The Bible seems pretty clear on this: you're responsible for your own employees, not those of everyone else on the planet.
     
SimpleLife  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 11, 2005, 09:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by Sherwin
Nope. The Bible seems pretty clear on this: you're responsible for your own employees, not those of everyone else on the planet.
So let me get this straight: if you buy something that was stolen, you are still innocent, right? Especially if you are aware that the stuff was stolen and there were casualties, right? And child labor too?
     
Sherwin
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 11, 2005, 09:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by SimpleLife
So let me get this straight: if you buy something that was stolen, you are still innocent, right? Especially if you are aware that the stuff was stolen and there were casualties, right? And child labor too?
Sorry dude, but you're insane.

Where are you going to stop? Are you going to start shopping at supermarket A because supermarket B gives its employees $0.05 less pay per hour and is therefore stealing from them in some bizarre way? That's where the logical extension of your argument lies, isn't it?
( Last edited by Sherwin; Jul 11, 2005 at 09:33 PM. )
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 11, 2005, 09:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Sherwin
Sorry dude, but you're insane.

Where are you going to stop? Are you going to start shopping at supermarket A because supermarket B gives its employees $0.05 less pay per hour and is therefore stealing from them in bizarre some way? That's where the logical extension of your argument lies, isn't it?
Only if you accept that paying 5¢ less per hour is wrong. Here is the form of the argument:

- Premise 1: Doing X is immoral
- Premise 2: Knowingly supporting people in immoral activities is immoral
- Premise 3: Buying goods from people who do X supports people who do X
-- Conclusion: Knowingly buying goods from people who do X is immoral

You can insert "car theft" and "running a sweatshop" into Premise 1 and most people will accept it as true. You can extend it to paying people 5¢ less per hour only if you think most people will agree that's immoral.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Sherwin
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 11, 2005, 09:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit
Only if you accept that paying 5¢ less per hour is wrong. Here is the form of the argument:

- Premise 1: Doing X is immoral
- Premise 2: Knowingly supporting people in immoral activities is immoral
- Premise 3: Buying goods from people who do X supports people who do X
-- Conclusion: Knowingly buying goods from people who do X is immoral
And here's how it gets if you start going down that route:

Buying goods from Company A who use cleaning products from Company B who get their containers from Company C who manufacture their stuff using raw product from Company D whose boss buys coffee from Cafe E whose owner has a nice sideline in stolen cars is immoral.

Where do you stop?

The answer: at yourself. You are not your brother's keeper.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 11, 2005, 09:59 PM
 
Which of the premises do you reject, then? It's a logically valid argument, so you must either reject one of the premises or agree with it (or you can just be illogical, I guess).
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Sherwin
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 11, 2005, 10:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit
Which of the premises do you reject, then?
All of them.
     
SimpleLife  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 11, 2005, 10:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by Sherwin
And here's how it gets if you start going down that route:

Buying goods from Company A who use cleaning products from Company B who get their containers from Company C who manufacture their stuff using raw product from Company D whose boss buys coffee from Cafe E whose owner has a nice sideline in stolen cars is immoral.

Where do you stop?

The answer: at yourself. You are not your brother's keeper.

Oh no. Nothing to do with your brother; you buy the stolen goods aware or not of where they come from, you are in it just as much.

We are all stuck there; this where are all joined together; in the ethics of our relations.

Blame it on your brother as much as you want; you are still responsible just as much. We all are. The difference is how we care for others. But as you said, not being your brother's keeper's, may be it means that you can act on your own set of Laws...

Which puts us all back to square one; if we can act as vigilantes, or according to Laws of our own, then we are not different from terrorists.
     
SimpleLife  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 11, 2005, 10:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Sherwin
All of them.
If you reject all of them, you prove the terrorists are right.

You cannot live on this planet and not assume your responsabilities abroad... and the consequences.
     
loki74
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2005, 01:03 AM
 
Sweatshops:
Lets look at this from an economic perspective, and I'll try to make this clear as possible because even if your life is simple, your messages are confusing and at this point making no sense at all. There seems to be a rift of communication... Anyway look: company needs part X. Sweatshop can provide company with part X at a price lower than any local group can. So company provides business to sweatshop X. That may sound immoral, but lets look at it in more detail, before we have a silly self-righteous anti capitalist rant. Why is the sweatshop price so low? A couple of factors. For one, the dollar is probably much stronger than given country's currency. Also, the sweatshop wants to be able to compete, so they can with low prices, seeing as how they can't with quality or reputation or advertisment, etc. Strong dollar in comparison, that would be the fault of the country's government--poor economic planning, system, and implementation. Inability to compete with any other means than price, that would also be the fault of the given country's government. If they had a better economic system, then their companies would be in better shape and able to compete with other means than a ridiculously low price.

Lets also look at some other facts: Because the country of the sweatshop is doing poor economically, all providers of the materials and capital necessary for sweatshop to produce will be doing equally bad as the sweatshop and have an equally low price. Thus, the cost of production for them is significantly less than the cost of production would be for a group in the US producing the same part. They probably make a decent margin on sales.

Another thing to consider is the owners of the sweatshops. Be damned sure they're all cutting profits and living it up. Why? Because their country doesnt have laws enforcing the just treatment and pay of workers. They hire kids and abuse them for very little pay because their government lets them do it.

If given countries revamp their economy and laws, the sweatshops will disappear. Slowly, granted. But things would improve. I mean look at China. They just got back Honk Kong, which thrived under British rule. China is now (economically) growing rapidly, taking after the good example the British set.

Finally, did you read what you replied to? If US and other big countries' companies did not buy from the sweatshops, they would make no money whatsoever. The owners would just fire their already-poorly-treated workers, who in turn would starve and die.

I'm not saying sweatshops are good. They are morally wrong. That is why we have none in the US. But we cannot really control other countries, and if we lock down free international trade... well, that always has a negative effect on the economy. And not just ours.

So yes, its wrong and immoral, but I dont see you doing anything about it. I havent heard any great ideas from you.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Liberals:
Um, who the hell is bashing who here? I mean, you start a thread pretty much equating the mind of a right winger to the mind of a terrorist. Of course I'm going to defend what I believe. Clearly you intend to bash conservatives, or you just have very poor judgement as what to name your threads.

It sounds like youre trying to be more balanced. You should have named your thread "Terrorists and Americans;..."

I think terrorists take the worst attributes of the typical conservative mind, and the worst attributes of the typical liberal mind, and mix it into something thats 50% right, 50% left, 100% evil, 0% Republican, and 0% Democrat. That is 0% American.

"In a world without walls or fences, what need have we for windows or gates?"
     
dialo
Senior User
Join Date: May 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2005, 01:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by loki74
You liberals say that there is "always another way other than violence,"
An la times poll 2 days after 9/11 showed that the percentages of liberals and conservatives who supported military retaliation vs bringing bin laden to trial were virtually identical. The stereotypes you believe in are dead false.
but you never give ANY solutions.
No, you just don't read foreign affairs, the atlantic, new yorker, ny review of books, etc, etc, etc. in other words, you obviously don't read anything of substance at all. TV and the crap that makes up the poorman's internet leads to ridiculous illusions like the one just admitted to here. Moderates, liberals and conservatives of all kinds have written extensively for years detailing alternatives to the obviously failed and flawed current policies and strategies, but real policy discussions involving the people who make policy (including bush admin policy makers) don't make it to junk tv/internet.

After all, when was the last time that you saw Feith discussing the faults of Stanley Baldwin on TV? And that's a reference to the most mainstream, watered-down source listed above.
( Last edited by dialo; Jul 12, 2005 at 01:52 AM. )
     
dialo
Senior User
Join Date: May 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2005, 01:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy
liberals don't trust people to do the right thing. They believe that rules are required in order to gain compliance
and conservatives want to legislate personal lives. give it a rest.
( Last edited by dialo; Jul 12, 2005 at 02:09 AM. )
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:00 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,