1. The world according to Hitchens

Comment #259113 by Crazy_Steve on October 2, 2008 at 10:49 pm

R2S:
Nice to see you stopped bothering trying to actually debate, and just stuck to the insulting. You suck at both though.
I'm not tired of you, you make me laugh at you for how pathetic your attempts are to seem superior because you used blockquotes. Here does this make you feel better?

See how I did that? See? See? I used the blockquote tag. Yay, I'm such a genius.

I hope I make a typo so you can feel superior about your spelling ability too.

Feel free to go away and stop posting any time you like though. Everyone has already realized that you have no idea what you are talking about.

2. The world according to Hitchens

Comment #258972 by Crazy_Steve on October 2, 2008 at 3:41 pm

R2S:
If you put your head in the sand long enough you might suffocate, you've already caused brain damage to yourself, it would be a good time to open your mind instead of resorting to ideologies.

Said by RTS: "The supporters of the Iraq war have been wrong about everything. Why should we listen to your analysis now?"

How about making a point instead of just saying "I'm right you're wrong so I'm not listening"

Said by RTS: "I have not obfuscated. Those two points are interconnected. The war was never about moral responsibilities. It was about money. You are using general statements that are true to rationalize your decision. However, the decision to help someone is followed by the decision of who to help, and you have not answered as to why you picked Iraq. This is just to point out the weakness in your argument. I do not believe that the majority of the people who support this war give a fuck about anyone but themselves, so debating this line of thought is meaningless."

You really need a course in logic. If you have multiple choices, if choice A is the best, that doesn't automatically make all the other choices bad choices. I don't have to answer why the Americans picked Iraq, it wasn't my choice and I agree it wasn't the best choice. However, they did pick it so I choose to analyze based on its own merits instead of making broad generalizations about it wasn't as good as something else.

Secondly bad reasons to go to war doesn't mean the war itself is necessarily bad. It's a separate issue within the political system. Analogy: I give $100 to your charity of choice because a rich uncle says he will give me $200 to do so. Not a good reason for giving, but does that mean the giving to charity was wrong? Answer this without obfuscating about deaths of innocents, which are not caused by the reason for going to war, but by the war itself.

Thirdly, there is no reason that a decision to help someone has to be made before the decision who to help. Whether to help or not could easily be decided on a case by case basis where there is a good possibility of helping no-one, or helping in multiple situations. Whether any help is given or not is not discovered until after the decision on individual situations is made. This is a much better description of how this particular kind of process occurs in international situations.

Said by RTS: " 'The problem is these people have no sense of empathy.'
later:
'This was not in response to anyone who challenged me. It was directed to another poster with a similar stance as mine as an explanation for why you don't get it.' "

No, it was not an explanation, it was an attempt to belittle people who disagree with you because you can't refute their claims. You don't know me, you have no idea how much empathy I may or may not have for these people. It's a very good example of you avoiding real debate. Restating a description of empathy doesn't make it more of an argument either.

Said by RTS: "It is this arrogance which makes you hated. Just because you think the long term effects may be good, a 100,000 people had to die?"

Ooh, I'm so hated for arrogance.... what a lame attempt to insult me without making a point.
As for your second sentence, no, I don't think that 100,000 people had to die. However, there are situations where unintentional deaths are justified by the result, for example saving a million lives. Unlike the opponents of the US and Britain, we actually try to minimize casualties. It is called sacrifice. Sometimes you have to give up smaller things to make larger gains. That doesn't mean we should ignore casualties, it doesn't make it any easier on the affected people, however you must recognize that casualties are unavoidable and the existence of casualties is not an excuse to do nothing.

Said by RTS: "Are you retarded? I said I don't care which does not mean support. And you have some nerve using the "innocents get killed" line, (when clearly you do not care about that) and trying to use it against me, whose main argument for being against wars is the loss of innocent lives."

Oh look, two insults! I'm retarded and I don't care if people die. Yippee!! Glad you're getting to know me.

"You don't care if they do" is exactly equivalent to "I would do nothing about it". You resort to insults because you are locked into a contradiction that you can't argue your way out of.
You say people dying is bad.
No war means people die, but you justify those deaths so you say they don't count.
When people point out the flaws in your argument, you resort to insults.

3. The world according to Hitchens

Comment #258357 by Crazy_Steve on October 1, 2008 at 10:59 pm

well root2squared, I really shouldn't waste my time with someone that resorts to calling me a troll because they can't put together a logical argument but here goes anyway:

You said:

"our tax money did not go into indirectly killing them. We do not bear a moral responsibility for their deaths"

I pointed out that inaction does not mean you do not have moral responsibility. You have not answered that point. You have obfuscated about there being other places that might have been better, but you have never directly addressed this point.


You said:
"you are making a lot of money from this war, then I can see why you would support it. Otherwise, a dispassionate look at the scenario, after taking off the "patriot" blinkers might reveal a different reality."

I said that while the money making is immoral, it is a much more complicated situation than either A) you're making money off the war or B) you don't support the war

You have continued to deny the existence of intermediate positions, thus you are using a false dichotomy.


here is your response to people that challenge you:

"The problem is these people have no sense of empathy."

yeah, that sure showed how flawed the argument was.


Here's another example of how you believe there are only two camps, this one regarding the only possible reasons one could support the war.
"Either you are profiting from the war, or you are just immoral"

Here's an example of a really ignorant thing you said:
"And yes, I have no problem if religious fanatics kill each other."

So you support religious war as long as it doesn't involve your tax dollars. /extra sarcasm/Yeah, I bet no innocents get killed in a relgious war between fanatic factions /end extra sarcasm/


Again, I don't think the Iraq war was a good idea, I don't like people making billions off of it, and I think the civilian deaths are terrible. But that doesn't mean that the long term effect won't be good, or that we should bring all the troops home tommorrow. You have to use rational though processes because the emotional processes often lead to worse errors in the future. I can't "rationalize away crimes against humanity" because I can't change the past. But I hope that rational minds are involved in the plan for the future.


editing: bah, can't seem to make quote tags work... substituted good old quotation marks

4. The world according to Hitchens

Comment #258258 by Crazy_Steve on October 1, 2008 at 5:10 pm

Root2squared: I have read your previous posts and you have not addressed my comments.

If you believe you have, prove it with quoting yourself, I'll be happy to rip those to shreds too.

Crimes against humanity... you're definitely fond of hyperbole.

5. The world according to Hitchens

Comment #258226 by Crazy_Steve on October 1, 2008 at 4:09 pm

root2squared,

You are applying a false dichotomy to a very complex situation.
you are seriously oversimplifying the idea of support for the war into two camps:
Either A) You have supported it from the beginning and all the reasons for which it was done
Or B) You don't support the war.

One could certainly support the efforts to bring freedom and democracy to Iraqi citizens while being fully aware that the mainn reasons for invasion were immoral. Another obvious position is to disagree with the original invasion, but realize that the best course of action at this point is to continue the war. Few people believe that a rapid US pullout at this time would be good for Iraq.

Myself, I feel that morally we must support continued US involvement in Iraq until such time as leaving Iraq won't make a greater mess of things than it started with. How much money Halliburton makes (disgusting as it is) is unimportant to how this war changes the situation in Iraq. That said, profiteering is definitely something that the US public should be demand to have stopped. If that is your problem, deal with that. Few people would disagree with you.

Secondly, you are way off base suggesting that assassination of Saddam (and his sons) would have been a possible solution. The war that would have caused would have had far more casualties than this one.

You also make the following connection, which is simply not true: support for war = personal responsibility for killing innocents. How exactly do you make this connection? There is a huge gap between individual feelings and national direction.

You also suggest that inaction (saying we shouldn't go to Iraq) absolves us of responsibility for deaths of other people. But there is no doubt that inaction can be just as immoral as wrong actions. If you have the power to save a life and you don't you are responsible for that death just as much as if you had killed that person. This is one kind of immorality that the UN does very very well.

6. The world according to Hitchens

Comment #257555 by Crazy_Steve on September 30, 2008 at 4:34 pm

I can't believe the love in for the UN by some posters here... the world government that is so smart they pass a resolution (or whatever the heck it is) against religious defamation and suggest it should be law in all countries to criticize religion... duh.
The agreement of the UN is what makes a war just? So if the US annexes Canada (sure farfetched, but whatever) and the UN doesn't pass a resolution to invade because the US has a Veto then it would be bad for another country to come to Canada's aid?
100's of thousands dead in Iraq due to war... how many would have died in the open fighting over succession that would have occurred on Saddam's natural (or other unnatural) passing anyway? Probably way more.
Not saying that the US war was a good idea, or that it was motivated by good reasons, just saying that people are so entrenched in their opinions they don't consider the whole picture.
As for liberals... their constant whining about "rights" annoys me too. Ask most what a "right" is and how they come to exist and they can't even answer.

7. An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Comment #176688 by Crazy_Steve on May 7, 2008 at 9:30 pm

This may be the scariest thing I have read in a long time.

As to why people do this: because they really want someone else to be responsible for their problems and tell them what to do. It's hard making your own decisions and taking the consequences.

8. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175705 by Crazy_Steve on May 5, 2008 at 10:58 pm

Ok, no more trying to be a smartass,lol. I don't like elitism and I don't like placing people into categories that demean and take away their basic human rights. In western society that includes their right to vote. I don't believe that all religious people are dimwits and I don't believe that all atheists are geniuses. Are we seriously going to measure everyones IQ before we allow them to vote? What else should we take away from them? How far are we going to take this and who's going to make that decision? Also what level IQ do they need to have before you're satisfied? Do they have to agree with a particular philosophy and who decides that?

Again, it's not about intelligence level, it's about knowing what you are voting for (and necessarily against). Is it really unreasonable to demand that people make informed votes? Why would anyone accept that a vote made in ignorance of what that vote represents has value? Education is good up to a point, but unless we can be sure that people actually have accumulated some knowledge of what it is that a party or individual represents then what accountability is there?
I also fully agree that IQ tests are horribly unreliable, and tests of any kind are biased toward the culture of the test author. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to improve the system.
I'm also unsure of where you get the connection between requiring knowledge of what you are voting for to taking away of basic rights. Like in Teratornis' example, I have had to pass a test to drive a car, but no-one considers it an unreasonable infringement on the rights of people who cannot pass this test for a variety or reasons for this test to be required, nor does this necessarily lead to infringements on other rights.
In any case what are "rights" anyway? This is a word thrown around a lot, but I think few people really think about the word itself. Rights don't exist without a legal system so keep in mind there is no such thing as an inherent right.

Teratornis:
Oh the joy of economics. I have been saying for a couple of years now that the price of gasoline is far too low to get meaningful change in habits, even as people complain about the cost of gas. I agree, it's going to be a bumpy ride, and many tenets of our society might have to be rethought. However, I think that the required technology will come before a truly major crash, and we are unlikely to break our mobility addictions. I do worry about the carrying capacity of the planet in terms of number of people at American level affluence though.

9. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175674 by Crazy_Steve on May 5, 2008 at 8:48 pm

Utelme

You're right, I shouldn't have called you Ben Stein, he at least tries to make a point.

10. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175668 by Crazy_Steve on May 5, 2008 at 8:29 pm

Ok, after some thought on the matter, a new post with some clarification:
First, my stance here is not about intelligence nor having a particular level of intelligence to be allowed to vote, it is about a person having to have a reasonable level of knowledge regarding the world and what they are voting for when casting their vote. The response that some people of low intelligence may not be able to vote only applies to those people who would by virtue of their particular intelligence level not be able to master a basic understanding of basic general knowledge of the world, and the political platforms of both that they are voting for and against, not by some arbitrary measure of intelligence or education. There is no need to judge the value of a person by their intelligence, however, I think it is dogmatic to suggest that all people should have the right to vote regardless of any qualifications whatsoever to do so.
The Hitler comment is particularly interesting because though he was a dictator, he did come to power through an essentially democratic process initially and was an immensely popular figure in Germany for some time.
And as this is a sidetracked Sam Harris discussion, I think it worth noting that Sam wouldn't describe himself as anti-religious but rather anti-dogma. The blind acceptance of the current form of democracy without fair examination strikes me as particularly dogmatic. I am open to ideas and discussion, and if you can show how I am wrong, then you have done a service to me, but be prepared to explain and back up your beliefs.

11. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175652 by Crazy_Steve on May 5, 2008 at 7:32 pm

utelme

Hmm, interesting point of view. Not much different from a guy called Adolf.

Nice misdirection Mr. Stein.... equate an argument with Hitler, but don't add anything to the discussion.

Call me when you need a prescription, I have no medical training, but lots of opinions.

Oh the hypocrisy... the opinion of an informed and rational person regarding faith is better than that of the irrational believer, but the same principles don't apply to the right to vote.

12. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175636 by Crazy_Steve on May 5, 2008 at 6:35 pm

Peacebeuponme

I just can't see how. You happen to have had a tough week at work and haven't had the time to mug up on the election. So you get not vote?

So how exactly are you deciding your vote if you didn't look into the issues? It's not like elections are one week affairs either, and if you are out of the loop long enough such that your vote is uninformed, on what basis are you deciding your vote? Why should your vote count?

Couldn't disagree more. Voting should be a basic, mundane, immovable right open to all. "Privileges" are things you get based on circumstance or acheivement, none of which should apply to voting. To me its analogous to access to food. I do not feel privileged when I eat my bacon sandwich in the morning, and nor should any hungry person feel that way when they finally get given food. Privilege seems to suggest we should be grateful to the person allowing the vote. Nope. Not at all.

Your opportunity to eat a bacon sandwich in the morning is very much a product of your circumstance. Would you really be doing that if you were a refuge in the Sudan, or perhaps living in a kosher community in Israel? A right is a legal term and an invention of people who have privelege and is in no way "innate." I am grateful every day that I do not have to worry about food, shelter or clean water. I do not assume that I have a "right" to demand that these be given to me. If I were to not have these things I would work to try and gain them, and be grateful to those people who helped me to achieve them.

Cards on the table, we both know that the world would be better for all if it were run by a handful of benevolent dictators.

I disagree. Without accountability to voters and the changing of governments to bring in fresh ideas all governments become stale. One could imagine the perfect dictator, but it is clearly impossible (or at least extremely improbable) for this person (or better, sufficient number of people to enact an efficient government) to exist.

We know that the majority view is idiotic in a lot of cases (which artist cares about the people's choice award and not the academy nomination?). However, what grounds can we have for justifying our opinion being more important than others? By setting a test, any kind of test, you immediately discriminate based on intelligence. That cannot be right.

The grounds for discrimination of opinion are simple: the informed and rational opinion is better than the uniformed or irrational opinion. There is no doubt that some opinions are better than others. In cases like the people's choice award it doesn't matter because there are no larger consquences riding on it, however you wouldn't accept the opinion of a person that hadn't studied medecine on the effectiveness of a particular drug to treat a particular illness would you? (Hmm, that's a nice blue pill, I bet that one is good, you should take it!) Why would you accept the opinion of an uninformed person on the direction your country should take? If that means that some people do not get to vote based on intelligence then that is a consquence of them not being able to understand enough to vote. We already do this in all democratic countries by discriminating against minors. We pick an arbitrary age as a cutoff for the age at which we feel people are not mature enough to exercise this "right."
Taken to the case of the current world this implies that it is acceptable to have fundamental Islamic Law, after all, if a majority of people vote for it, it must be Ok right?

13. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175594 by Crazy_Steve on May 5, 2008 at 4:53 pm

bah, can't make quotes work...
@Peacebeuponme
Nope not joking. Of course, it isn't a perfect idea, (or even well formed idea) but certainly worth considering as a starting point. Voting carries great responsibility, selecting the path for a country for the next period of time. This shouldn't be done easily or without due consideration. I really think that it should be considered a privilege to vote. There is no need to discriminate based on race, intelligence, religion etc, just to be knowledgable about what it is that you are voting for, and the context in which you place that vote.

14. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175574 by Crazy_Steve on May 5, 2008 at 4:01 pm

Great article Sam.

I believe this is an example of why western liberalism is doomed. Our political correctness ignores the central paradox that you can't have tolerance of people who are not tolerant themselves. (Closely related to Sam's description of pacifists in his book) When things get bad enough, our political leaders will be forced to either convert, or take on the major religions. Here in Canada there has been some mention of allowing Sharia law in some civil cases... if that does come to pass, that may be the beginning of the end.

The failure of democracy commented on here is also a worthwhile topic... just because lots of people believe something doesn't make it true, so why should majority rule? I think we should have voter quizzes which you have to score at least 80% on to be allowed to vote. It should contain questions about current events, general knowledge and the platforms of the candidates (candidates running on emotional appeal without a platform would automatically be disqualified, since you couldn't have questions about their platform)

15. People who've experienced God KNOW that God exists

Comment #169365 by Crazy_Steve on April 25, 2008 at 9:57 pm

How many people here have seen a skilled magician? They can do magic, so magic is real right?

The basic functioning of the brain and an overview of how concious percepion is different than reality should be required in all education programs around the world.

16. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #169339 by Crazy_Steve on April 25, 2008 at 7:32 pm

I think all of this discussion (in which I happen to mostly agree with Steve Zara) ignores the fact that most people are hopelessly ignorant of scientific process to the point that they don't realize that they are ignorant.
I am a school teacher and I see that most students see science as either a collection of essentially random (and unconnected) facts or a black box out of which comes great statements of varying degrees of believability. If the public school system can't do better, what hope is there for the 85-90% of people who never have any further science education after leaving secondary school?
In light of this is it really a surprise that they feel free to comment on things they know nothing about? They are easily duped by religious types who suggest that science is a kind of faith because they really don't know any better, and as such they feel their comments are equally as valid as those of anyone else. There is no solution other than an education system that encourages students to think and question, which is certainly not the one we have now.