1. Apes that write, start fires and play Pac-Man

Comment #314460 by zeroangel on January 7, 2009 at 7:41 am

DalaiDrivel:

*Smile* I began thinking we were in agreement. We seem now to be debating. Is that what you wanted?

Actually, no. I was just thinking out loud. This is a topic I have been conflicted about recently. I just left out the portion about slavery in the interest of saving space, that's all.

I read everything you wrote and will consider it. I am of the opinion that the more complex or "human-like" an animal is, the more "rights" it deserves. So, its probably OK to enslave a horse or eat a cow, but not nessecerily so with a Bonobo.

Animal "rights" are just such a tough one because (like many things) it's a gray area.

So we create the situation of bonobos requiring protection, and then, in your scenario, hypothetically require compensation for it.

Well, "we" as a human race aren't exactly a single entity. *I* personally, never encroached on a Bonobo's territory. However, if myself, or some one like me, were to take one into my home (presumably after an inevitable? destruction of thier own home) would it be terrible to expect that it helps out? Could I pay it in little trinkets or tokens that it could redeem for the food of it's choice? Would that be slavery? Afterall, that's exactly how it works with my employer *smile*.

Do you suppose that human imperialism into the animal kingdom is inevitable?

I would have to say, yes. Wouldn't you? There's only so much space on the Earth afterall.

In that case, you seem to contradict the compassion you seem to show to the tuna in that charming depiction of its death...

That was tongue-in-cheek, of course. I have very little concern for the hopes, dreams, aspirations, and life of a tuna. However, (as I indicated) I do have just a tiniest bit of concern that if stem cell research were able to produce the meat of a tuna for comsumption (indistinquishable from actual tuna) I would be pleased and happy for the saved tunas; who will no doubt end up devoured by some other dumb animal *smile*.

Seriously, however, could you elaborate on this because I'm not sure what you're getting at.

I was trying to say that perhaps it is our evolved empathy, (the purpose of which seems to be that it is in the interests of our genes for us to protect and care about members of our tribe or family) that is "backfiring" (as Dawkins likes to say) to produce an empathy for other animals. No doubt this is not so "natural" because I am also naturally evolved to enjoy murdering and consuming tuna, eating is very natural and essential for survival.

That said, at what point (if any) should we say to ourselves, "OK, this is ridiculous, it's an animal for goodness sake!" Who cares about it's feelings, culture, etc.

It's an open ended question I am still considering.

PS. Dont be sorry, Tuna tastes just absolutely heavenly. Of course there is no Heaven, but if there was they will almost certainly serve pan-seared, sesame-crusted tuna at the resturants in Heaven. This will of course be accompanied with a nice Reisling (my fav, very sweet) and followed by wanton sexual gratification via my lovely waitress. I will then charge it all to my limitless Visa Platinum-Heaven edition (I'll gain miles too, for trips to Elysium). Finally, Jesus (as the maitre de) will then thank me for coming. I'll say something like, "Thank you Jesus! This place is my favorite, I'll be back soon." We will both know it's just a platitude, but since it's Heaven it will be totally kewl.

2. Apes that write, start fires and play Pac-Man

Comment #314176 by zeroangel on January 6, 2009 at 11:27 pm

DalaiDrivel:

Quick post before I goto bed (it's very late here):

I think the difference between consumption for food, and adoption as pets or slaves, is that suffering, with the former, can probably be quantified, ... We don't need to understand a bovine's character to kill and eat one. We do if we want to keep it as a pet or slave.

But then, is it about the animals suffering or our self-loathing for making an animal suffer (or kill it and eat it) ?

I had some seafood tonight. Some raw tuna and something the menu called "imperial longfin" (perhaps a kind of tuna?) In any event, I'm sure that the fish in question was living a very happy fish life (the only life it will ever have) until it was impaled by a piece of metal, dragged gasping for breath, thrown in a box full of its fellow fish, and ultimately fileted for my dining pleasure.

Whilst I gorged on its flesh, I considered this... and well, it didn't matter all that much. Afterall, it's just a fish.

Would this fish have been happier had it lived out it's life in slavery or capitivity in my fish tank?

Truly, I don't know. But I *DO* know that I think *I* would rather be a slave (though I would no doubt try and free myself, even if I risked death) then someone's dinner. Faced with the choice, I think slavery (certainly with a benign and kind master) is probably more humane or kind to myself and my one (and only) shot at exsisting.

I suppose you are correct in saying:

We don't need to understand a bovine's character to kill and eat one.

No, you don't. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have any kind of character that may or may not be worthy of some kind of understanding.

I am dubious that there are any necessary scenarios wherein they would require protection, and that we would have any right to demand compensation if we provided said protection.

They are already protected by "us." I am relatively certain that the Congo (and whatever NGOs and international organizations involved) go to great lengths to protect them.

But non-caucasian people ARE human

No doubt. Any justification for slavery along the lines that blacks (or otherwise) aren't quite human and need protection has been rightfully shown to be wrong. However, this is not true in the case of horses (or bonobos).

EDIT: One last thing that occured to me:

It's entirely possible that many years from now human beings will see animals (like fish) living in thier natural (or unnatural and artifical zoo-like) habitats and recoil in horror at the thought that "early man" dined on the broken bodies of dead animals. Evolved empathy backfiring as RD has said about altruism and such? Perhaps... but so what?

PS. I like tuna

3. Atheists launch bus ad campaign

Comment #314132 by zeroangel on January 6, 2009 at 9:37 pm

miekol:

I'll try and be as brief and charitable as possible:

Yes. What you say COULD be, and I used to consider the same things.

However, if one is going to water down the definition of "god" to something so abstract... well, why bother? I'm sure "HE" isn't bothering with us on any tangible level.

4. Apes that write, start fires and play Pac-Man

Comment #314011 by zeroangel on January 6, 2009 at 5:14 pm

DalaiDrivel:

Actually, this is something I have been laboring over recently:

Firstly, up front: I am not a vegeterian. I do enjoy meat (often esp steak) and argue that it is natural. However, I imagine if stem cell research allows us to create meat for consumption without killing animals that would be a good thing.

That said, I think there are degrees to which animals should be given "rights." I dont think anyone would worry so much about the "rights" of a sponge, but a whale?

Is a developed CNS (one like ours) a good gauge of who deserves "rights?" Is that idea itself an arrogant human-centric idea?

If it's OK to eat cows (or whales in at least one culture), why is it not OK to treat animals as slaves? It seems accpetable to treat horses (for example) as slaves. Are they different because they aren't "wild?" Then again, they aren't wild because of humans in the first place.

It's a tough one, but back to the point: am I not so sure a futuristic world in which Bonobos are protected and cared for by human beings in exchange for manual labor is a terrible thing. Although, I think it might hit close to home because they just seem so "human."

Then again, I saw an ape in the Bronx zoo recently, I have to say, it didn't look happy, and I felt bad for her.

Anyhow, just thinking out loud here. I welcome any thoughts.

5. Atheists launch bus ad campaign

Comment #313984 by zeroangel on January 6, 2009 at 4:36 pm

Lucas:

Can't stop grinning over this. Well... how about New York City then? No need for buses, just subway adds. Anybody up for it?

I live in NJ and if anyone gets this going in NYC I'd be happy to donate. Heck, I'll pledge $50 right now to a NYC bus (or subway ad).

6. Atheists launch bus ad campaign

Comment #313861 by zeroangel on January 6, 2009 at 2:52 pm

Richard Dawkins:

Why do you guys waste time replying to dvophoto? Can't you see, that's what he is here for, to waste your time and attention?

For me, I guess it's just some small hope that one comment I make might get him to see somehting slightly different. If he does read your book because I mentioned it, I'll be very happy.

OK for real... dinner... must leave computer...ARRGH.

7. Atheists launch bus ad campaign

Comment #313855 by zeroangel on January 6, 2009 at 2:49 pm

Ariane's attractiveness is irrelevant.

Yes, true that, but unfortunately evolution has left me with this urge to reproduce, and well, she's hot and I can't help but notice :-(.

8. Atheists launch bus ad campaign

Comment #313840 by zeroangel on January 6, 2009 at 2:43 pm

*yawn*

I defer to the others here. I am going out for dinner.

dvophoto: you wouldn't have to pray for a conflicted gay christian if Christianity (in a general sense) weren't so anti-gay.

So, about sterotypes, well let's just say that many exist for a reason. Perhaps you are a very "progressive" Christian and have more of a belief in a "transcendental God."

If that is the case I really, really, really, really recommend you read "The God Delusion" and then come back here. It might surprise you.

PS. There are many un-deserved sterotypes about atheists too, BTW.

9. Atheists launch bus ad campaign

Comment #313800 by zeroangel on January 6, 2009 at 2:19 pm

dvophoto reminds me of a guy at work whom I consider a friend. He is generally a very pleasent and nice guy as long as the topic of evolution (or a handful of other hot buttons) doesn't come up.

The fact is, it always comes down to vague, non-answers, evasive riddles, and word games:

"Logic and science can't explain everything."

"We have to look beyond reason."

"Faith can't be disected."

"The Lord works in mysterious ways."

"What is the sound of blue?"

"If a tree falls in the forest..."

I said to this friend in the past, "If it works for you and makes you happy that's fine, I just can't help but think it's a waste of time for me."

The alcohol analogy was brought up earlier. I guess I could say, I don't much care if dvophoto wants to stay drunk his whole life, as long as he doesn't get in a car (feel free to make your own analogy for the car).

Ummm...no, someone compared being suicidal and confused

Right, and being suicidal or confused because of the fear of your own mortality is one thing. Being suicidal or confused because some people brainwash you to believe that the creator of the universe cares what you do with your private parts is quite another thing.

10. Atheists launch bus ad campaign

Comment #313740 by zeroangel on January 6, 2009 at 1:52 pm

Ian Bamlett:

???????

I just type them in. Perhaps there is something wrong with your web browser software?

EDIT: My guesses would be as follows: Javascript needs to be updated (I am assuming this comment page uses javascript) or you are using a different character set on a non-english computer.

11. Atheists launch bus ad campaign

Comment #313731 by zeroangel on January 6, 2009 at 1:49 pm

dvophoto:

Likewise, we don't have to disprove of your particular god.

It was a quote on the cover of "The God Delusion" that caught my eye and made me decide to buy it (I suggest you give it a look as well before coming back to try and argue here):

I'm paraphrasing:

"We are all atheists about every god that ever existed, we (atheists) just take it one god further."

12. Atheists launch bus ad campaign

Comment #313703 by zeroangel on January 6, 2009 at 1:34 pm

"Mere chance"

Oh man are you in over your head.

13. Atheists launch bus ad campaign

Comment #313693 by zeroangel on January 6, 2009 at 1:29 pm

If you want to help people, do something practical.

Steve:

Not sure you want to encourage that. Likely dvophoto will want to try and "cure" homosexuals.

14. Atheists launch bus ad campaign

Comment #313683 by zeroangel on January 6, 2009 at 1:22 pm

Huh? Did someone just compare being gay with a malformed artery?

Ummm.... what?

And for the record, I've been in a similar situation as the young teenager you mention - back when I was 19 and suffered a near fatal stroke from a malformed artery in my brain I was born with. I made it through the situation though. I'll pray for the teenager you mention, gladly.

OK I call Poe's law. Fess up dvophoto.

15. Atheists launch bus ad campaign

Comment #313666 by zeroangel on January 6, 2009 at 1:11 pm

Not eating shellfish was an old testament law. Those laws were clearly given to Israel, and the Bible clearly states that Jesus' death did away with the law. The same law you are referring to commanded animal sacrifices, but that is no longer law either, because Christ became the ultimate sacrifice.

So, did "God" change his mind? Did he decide that he made a mistake or is the Bible not literally God's word?

EDIT:

dvophoto: BTW, you will find that many of us were raised Christian and managed to shrug it off. I think there are even one or two ex-pastors / ex-priests that comment here, though I can't remember their names.

16. Atheists launch bus ad campaign

Comment #313654 by zeroangel on January 6, 2009 at 1:00 pm

OMG. She is beautiful, almost as hot as my wife *smile*.

Anyhow, Pascal's wager? *YAWNNNN~~~~~~* Come on man, you can do better. You are about to be eaten alive here.

17. Apes that write, start fires and play Pac-Man

Comment #313637 by zeroangel on January 6, 2009 at 12:32 pm

What if people openly wanted to adopt or humanise them? Who knows- what if nutjobs wanted them to give up their sex lives through humanisation, or see them in circuses? It makes me recoil.

Indeed. What if people decided to take them into thier homes and have them do menial tasks like the dishes, the laundry, walking the dog, picking cotton etc. in exchange for food.

I am only half-joking when I say this.

18. Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson Debate

Comment #296404 by zeroangel on December 3, 2008 at 2:03 pm

silver bullet:

No doubt you will get some more eloquent worded answers but I guess I would say (not that I am any more qualified to say then the next fella):

It doesn't really "matter" or perhaps the word "matter" only really has some kind of meaning for us as humans.

Personally, I think it's kind of a fruitless effort (aside from the philosophical insights that might be gained). It's a bit like mulling over the whole "this statement is false" bit. It's fun to play with though, sure.

19. Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson Debate

Comment #296178 by zeroangel on December 3, 2008 at 8:02 am

Steve Zara (or NullInfinity):

Remind me because the black hole bit fascinates me:

Last time I asked you about this (Steve) I came away with the impression that falling into a black hole (assuming you didn't die from all kinds of nasty stuff) one would "see" time begin to accelerate all around you but before you could see "the end of the universe"(tm) you would get a bunch of blue shift as the "quanta" of light can only show you so much. The little "pixels" of light and time only go so far, correct?

Now, to be sure, the truth of the matter is that we simply just don't know for certain and what relativity says is a crude model while quantum theory is just a tad bit more refined, but still just a model, correct?

20. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #281007 by zeroangel on November 9, 2008 at 8:23 am

Wosret:

Our tiff is over, I don’t see why you want to continue to make snide remarks.

I deeply wanted to specify exactly what I thought, but I knew that it would just give Zero things to hide behind

Well then you were wrong about me. I too have some respect for enemy combatants that follow the rules of land warfare, unfortunately in Iraq, many of the enemies certainly do not.

Keep in mind that I consider this insult trading something of a game, a bit of ribbing. It means nothing and it's over, let's put it behind us. I have had people try to kill me in my life, as long as you don't hold a gun to my head, anything you say is just playful.

*Extends virtual hand to shake*

MPhil:

the willing participation not only in specifically unjust and inhumane actions, but in the barbarism of warfare in general - that is a blemish.

Does this also apply to soldiers that joined before the war started? What about soldiers in a general sense? Are German soldiers somewhat “blemished” by the very virtue of signing up to be a soldier? Is there not any merit to the idea that their very existence helps keep you (and others living in Germany) safe from foreign aggression? Is the commitment to ones duty in order to uphold a generally just system of government an admirable thing?

Of course what doesn't count at all is the "justification" that participating in the military intervention in Iraq was "in the countries best interest". There are two things wrong with this:

Well, what about the idea that soldiers refusing en masse to uphold their oaths would lead to the collapse of the government and suffering on an enormous scale within the US itself? What about the idea that it is a soldier’s duty to concern himself firstly with his commitments as he is merely an agent of an elected government?

directly in Iraq - you do need people finding those who wish to harm others render them harmless.

Yes. Thank you.

Bonzai:

But then during WWII many Wehrmacht soldiers and officers conducted themselves professionally and honourably in the battle field as well.

Absolutely agree and would even say I have some admiration for some of the historical figures as exceptional soldiers.

chewedbarber:

Haha. Good one.

21. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #280939 by zeroangel on November 8, 2008 at 11:59 pm

Wosret:

All you had to say when I asked you my earlier question was something to the effect of:

"I don't know if what you did in Iraq was contemptuous because I don't know how you conducted yourself. I do know though that the war is [insert what you think of the war and then go on to show how you believe I am not contributing anything]”

That’s not what you said though. You maligned countless soldiers and you got called on it.

So are we going to shake (virtual) hands and call this or what?

EDIT: OK, I'll check back tommorow.

22. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #280936 by zeroangel on November 8, 2008 at 11:52 pm

So much for an olive branch.

Wosret:

The points I brought up were to express my concerns that Obama may not be qualified to be the CnC. I am hopeful he might get someone like Colin Powell in his cabinet.

Dimwit, eh? I'm no longer interested in trading insults with you. It was amusing but no longer. If you don't want to put an end to it, fine. I will take the high road.

23. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #280934 by zeroangel on November 8, 2008 at 11:42 pm

Wosret:

How else am I supposed to appreciate what you said? I served in Iraq, I conducted myself professionally, and I upheld the rules of land warfare (EDIT: as did the aforementioned dead human beings). Am I (they) contemptuous or not?

24. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #280932 by zeroangel on November 8, 2008 at 11:37 pm

Brian:

Mitchell's words from before (responding to me):

I served in the military and fought in Iraq, was what I did there contemptuous?

Unequivocally yes.

Finally, all concerned:

Emotions run high on this issue. If I became noticeably upset the reasons should be obvious. In my view, the character of dead human beings I knew was maligned in this thread. I would kindly remind posters here to please be aware of this. I will not yet apologize for some of my comments ref. my fellow posters, as I believe they are accurate.

However, if certain posters care to retract or revise their statements I will extend the same courtesy.

25. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #280927 by zeroangel on November 8, 2008 at 11:30 pm

Mphil:

One thing I forgot:

We need more international cooperation - standards of justice to which everyone has to be accountable - and to which everyone can be held fully accountable. And that's why we need a functioning international court.

Yes, unfortunately the unorganized community in question has a long way to go. Many of it's member's are at fault and not just the "mafia boss."

26. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #280925 by zeroangel on November 8, 2008 at 11:21 pm

OK guys, back. She’s back asleep for now, and I am actually interested.

If all goes as expected, the response by certain people (we all know who I mean) will just exemplify my criticism - by exemplifying the worldview I criticize in blatantly ridiculous "defences"... trying to rationalize the atrocities I named.

Moi?

I am actually glad you posted MPhil. I can see from other posts of yours you are a thoughtful person.

While I might not appreciate your characterization of the US and perhaps argue that there are other points of view and better adjectives one could use; I can't say I truly disagree completely.

I would ask though, do you hold the same view Wosret seems to hold? That is, that any US serviceman serving their nation in Iraq is worthy of contempt regardless of if they uphold the rules of land warfare and regardless of how they conducted themselves personally?

Bonzai:

I think Mphil just about wrapped it up for us.

27. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #280915 by zeroangel on November 8, 2008 at 9:53 pm

Bonzai:

Sorry gtg. Pregnant wife just woke up and needs me. Until tommorow.

28. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #280912 by zeroangel on November 8, 2008 at 9:45 pm

Bonzai:

My point about cops not being able to choose which laws to enforce was not so much an analogy on this topic as it was recalling an earlier point that soldiers refusing orders en masse would lead to the collapse of the government. This would also be the case with police picking and choosing laws to enforce. The argument was that the soldier follows orders to uphold the system of government. That is why refusing to serve would be an “immoral” choice.

Why is it not ok for our hypothetical officer to act on his own to disobey the chief?

Well, you are confusing the analogy slightly. The Police Chief (the UN) isn’t doing anything. Some of the citizens of the lawless town are acting on their own accord, “vigilantism,” as you say. The individual soldier, (me, for example) would be just a family member (perhaps an adolescent boy) in one of the town’s families. He joins his father (his elected leaders) because he respects and admires his father and wishes to hold his own family (country) together.

Wosret:

Yes, I am about done with you. I might pick it up later if I feel charitable. Bonzai is much more interesting.

What is the point behind this question?

Just curious, as I said, trying to understand the limits of your bizarre world-view.

29. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #280907 by zeroangel on November 8, 2008 at 9:25 pm

Bonzai:

The UN is a useless organization. It is akin to a powerless keystone cop in a lawless town. In order to enforce any of its "rules" it must deputize the very members of its “town” that can’t agree. As such it often refuses to take action and proclaims that anyone who does take action is doing something “illegal.” This leads to nations like Israel (and the US) being told they aren’t allowed to defend themselves or their interests. It is laughable. As Al-rawandi pointed out:

They will act to make sure Islam isn't being insulted, then deal with the issue by doing absolutely nothing.

I have no doubt that if Canada found itself in a similar situation; it too, would ignore the impotent UN.

Wosret:

I can’t be any clearer. If you can’t see the correlation between ignorant politicians being elected by ignorant voters (even after I spelled it out for you using the example of Republicans and science) I can’t help you understand my point any further. I’m sorry I couldn’t be of more service.

As far as soldiers being contemptible, again, I can’t be anymore clear. You simplify and degrade the entire moral dilemma faced by a soldier in a democratic republic when faced with the idea that his nation is engaging in an “unjust” war. You act as if there isn’t even a dilemma and the only “right” thing to do is refuse service. What about overthrowing the government? What about performing your sworn duty secure in the thought that your system of government is a fair and duly elected one that might understand the nation’s interests better than you? You cheapen the dilemma and degrade the men and women that have actually had to face it.

I am curious though:

Soldiers that fought in Iraq are contemptible in your opinion. So, does that mean you support Iraqi “freedom fighters” killing those soldiers? Are they justified in your opinion?

Who, in your mind, is the more contemptible: coalition soldiers that generally follow the rules of land warfare, or the enemy they face that hides among (and indeed purposely targets) women and children?

30. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #280894 by zeroangel on November 8, 2008 at 6:49 pm

Wosret:

No, not to me.

What about the millions of "leftist" you slander with unjustified, childish, oversimplified, and mean-spirited smears and accusations?

Sorry, I think I said "far-left" as I could be considered a "leftist" myself. I am not "slandering" far-leftists either. I was pointing out that their contempt and ignorance of all things military (which is pandered to by the Democrats) leads to elected officials ignorant of, and hostile to, the military. Perhaps I should define a quality of “far-leftists” is that they have contempt for, and ignorance of, the military. The right wing does the exact same thing with science.

I don't need to clarify a damn thing… blah blah, followed by a serious of questions you should ask to a mirror.

Anyway:

You are in clear contradiction to your claim that if anything "contemptible" is ordered by your government then you are not obligated to follow out that order. Which is it?

Al-rawandi already explained this to you. You don’t understand the rules of land warfare and you obviously think GWB told me to impale infants on bayonets. You overly simplify the whole situation but it seems you already admitted that.

Were Nazi soldiers justified in their participation in death camps? Or is it only your country that is infallible?

Godwin’s law? Again, already explained to you, a US soldier has a duty to legally refuse an order (as I have mentioned) to execute a prisoner with a pistol to the back of the head.

Explain the relevance to any point you might make

OK, let me be as plain as possible. Republicans pander to ignorant fools that think the Earth is 6000 yrs old. As a result you get public officials that actually think the Earth is 6000 yrs old. Democrats pander to ignorant fools that think the military is a bad nasty thing run by bad nasty people. As a result you get, well this:

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,161799,00.html

and this:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2006/02/23/cstillwell.DTL

but he announced that the United States should have no military whatsoever. "The United States should not have a military," was how he put it.
When asked by an incredulous Hannity who would then protect the country, Sandoval responded that "the cops" and "the Coast Guard" could do the job. He must have forgotten that the police force is otherwise occupied and that the Coast Guard is part of the U.S. military he so abhors.

Oh and just for the record, no, I do not think Hannity is a very smart man at all. However, it doesn’t take a genius to see that saying a country doesn’t need a military is ignorant.

Bonzai:

If you are a cop and your commanding officer tells you to search a house without a warrant or to assasinate some scumbags alledgedly for some greater good, will you do it, should you?

Answered by Al-rawandi. In that situation I am legally bound to refuse. As for the UN, again, already answered by Al-rawandi.

31. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #280865 by zeroangel on November 8, 2008 at 3:43 pm

Well, I read through this discussion on economics and I must say I am surprised. There are several things in here I had never considered before and I will have to study further when I get a chance. I must thank you all once again for some interesting insights.

Anyhow everyone please forgive me if I detract from your conversation, but I feel it necessary to take our young friend Wosret to task here.

Wosret:

I regret what I said to Al earlier. I was wrong to call him a "stupid fuck" and to accuse him of dishonesty.

Yet, you can’t seem to summon up an apology, or at least a clarification for slandering hundreds of thousands of other people in one comment. The best you could do is:

Clearly there is more going on, and more to consider. It is not an easy issue, and I don't actually think that the military is contemptuous, or that all soldier are.

So, which ones are and which ones aren’t? Only the ones that served in Iraq presumably, am I wrong? Let’s see, how about a list of countries whose service members you have maligned:

United States
United Kingdom
Australia
South Korea
Romania
El Salvador
Czech Republic
Azerbaijan
…

Oh, f* it, just look it up yourself.

Quickly, a personal anecdote; I have several, but one should suffice.

I remember meeting a beautiful Japanese medical officer in Kuwait. She was redeploying from her tour in Iraq, we were starting ours. A fellow soldier of mine kept bugging me to talk to her for him (I took some Japanese in college, VERY limited). Anyhow, turns out she was a sweet, friendly woman and was looking forward to going home to see her infant son and husband, IIRC. Now, is she contemptuous? Keep in mind, it is entirely possible that she may have been in combat, and if not that, at the very least she assisted in the “illegal war” by serving in a combat support role. Oh and, just to throw Ted Rall in (for the benefit of others reading), he would have her “fragged” by her soldiers.

The majority isn’t always right

No shit. I suppose then you also think it is just fine for police officers to pick and choose the laws they wish to enforce. Perhaps if the “right” political candidate isn’t elected then he should just take charge regardless (as long as the UN supports him). After all, what’s right is what matters, not the integrity of a relatively just system and the stability of the government.

Says you, yet you won't defend the war...

I don’t have to. I should think that should be obvious by now, as I said, soldiers don’t pick and choose wars, and that doesn’t make them contemptible.

There is no objective standard of contemptibly.

I guess you could also say there isn’t an objective standard of what a narcissistic prick is either. While we are on that topic, out of morbid curiosity I wondered what kind of pathetic abortion of a human being would pass judgment on countless people in one ignorant comment that he could have easily clarified. So, I looked at your profile.

Well, I guess I have to say, I was a bit embarrassed to have picked on you so badly. After all, you are only 24; just a pup. Likely just out of school, or possibly still studying. Mind you, I am not saying all 24 year olds are immature, certainly any on this site must be fairly intelligent and mature, except of course, you: an ignorant whelp very possibly only recently toilet trained. As I said I was embarrassed, but then I remembered the faces of men I knew that were killed in the line of duty and thought about how you would find them “contemptuous.”

Reading further, I found that one of your hobbies is “slappin’ tits around.” Truly, I was somewhat surprised to see this is a profile on RD.net. Honestly, it was the kind of thing one might expect to find on the profile of a revolting misogynist on a porn site, not something a thoughtful, intelligent, caring human being might place on his or her profile. But then, turns out you aren’t very thoughtful after all. Then again, you could be talking about your own man-tits I suppose, but that would just be too bizarre.

So, how about it, care to clarify your position?

Was the service I performed for my country and the service of countless others from numerous countries contemptible, yes or no? Before you answer that, I am sure you are going to start bleating:

I made no remark. Zero repeated made the accusation that that is what "leftists" thought, and I merely agreed to make a point.

…that said, this would be a perfect opportunity to clarify your position and tell exactly what you really do think about the service of military personnel in Iraq, from any country.

Anyway, since we are trying to be civil: have a nice day *smile*.

PS. Very sorry for the enormous post all.

32. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #280324 by zeroangel on November 7, 2008 at 11:00 am

Bonzai:

But hey, soldier, you volunteered. If not for you, there wouldn't be a war in the first place.

Soldiers don't volunteer for wars of their choosing. They volunteer to join the military. Elected leaders choose the wars. If no one volunteered to join the military there wouldn't be a nation to defend as any tin-horn dictator could instantly over-run a defenseless nation.

Rall goes beyond dismay, he supports “fragging” officers and open military revolt. As I said, loathsome, deranged individuals like Akbar seem to be his heroes.

BTW, if I was incorrect about whose anecdote you are more willing to trust I will apologize, your seeming enthusiasm for r2s’ joke led me to my (perhaps hasty) conclusion.

33. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #280315 by zeroangel on November 7, 2008 at 10:48 am

Oh for goodness sake!

Let me rephrase:

"and as a result it is my belief you are more inclined to trust him."

Good grief.

34. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #280303 by zeroangel on November 7, 2008 at 10:27 am

Against my better judgment I figured I would check back:

Root2squared:

I read the article you linked by Ted Rall. This is same Ted Rall that publically maligned Pat Tillman until he realized Tillman was against the Iraq War, to Rall’s credit, he apologized for his remarks.

Anyhow, I nearly stopped reading at this point:

But hey, soldier, you volunteered. If not for you, there wouldn't be a war in the first place.

Rall’s reasoning is specious, soldiers don’t start wars. Furthermore, if soldiers didn’t volunteer there wouldn’t be a country to defend. He later goes on to encourage soldiers to “take a cue from Vietnam veterans” by disobeying orders or and perhaps even “fragging” their officers. A champion of morality this Rall is, at least he has the balls to take sides with the enemy, despite lacking the courage to do any “fragging” himself. By the way, at least one soldier did exactly that in Kuwait:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asan_Akbar

I suppose that this is what Rall considers a hero.

Bonzai:

He said the Canadians at least try to build up good will with the locals, the Americans are insane, they hole up in their base and once in a while swoop down from the sky and bomb the crap out of everyone

Well, incidentally I was an American soldier and I spent a great deal of time with locals and the Iraqi military building good will. Not that my anecdote is anymore valid then the person you talked to, the other person just happens to confirm your preconceived notions and as a result you are more inclined to trust him.

35. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #280204 by zeroangel on November 7, 2008 at 6:55 am

Zeroangel was right, you are woefully ignorant.

Yes, and not to mention an effete weakling that while perhaps well-read or somewhat intelligent is hopelessly lacking in maturity after having led a doubtless pampered existence.

Wosret: truly, at this point I must conclude that you are only worthy of ridicule and not serious consideration on this topic. I have no doubt that you may be able to offer some insightful points on other topics and I look forward to when you do so.

I will now defer to Al-rawandi if he wishes to further educate you.

Next time a police officer pulls you over for a traffic violation, try not to feel oppressed.

36. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #280187 by zeroangel on November 7, 2008 at 6:08 am

Wosret:

Yes option A. That is what I would do.

In doing so you would violate the principle of elected civilian leadership over the military. If a large portion of the US military followed your example, you would have a military revolt on your hands and the government would likely collapse. I’m sure you don’t understand these principles, being as how you obviously have no experience with the military whatsoever (and are likely proud of that). I also worry that Obama’s lack of experience with the military might pose some issues.

I asked you what you thought to illustrate my point that the far-left and by extension Democrats that they pander to have contempt for the military. Fortunately for me and my point, you are a far-left nut-job. I suppose you could say I was baiting you, but to illustrate my point. I don’t feel persecuted at all, and this isn’t personal. You statements obviously not only apply to me, but military in general, and presumably the Canadian one as well. Had Canada opted to fight in Iraq you would no doubt be calling your own countrymen contemptuous for upholding their oaths to serve their elected leaders.

It IS your character that is in question you fool. As is the character of the far-left the Democrats pander to.

I'm a narcissistic, pompous, arrogant, self-righteous moralizing, self-involved inconsiderate prick.

Yes, you are. Not to mention an impotent, overbearing cur. A pitiful weasel of a man who, upon seeing his own mother being brutally attacked, would likely scurry off to find the very men or women (police or soldiers) he would malign under other circumstances. Men and women who face moral dilemmas regularly and actually have to deal with the consequences of their choices, choices you would critique from the safety of your nursery. I would say you are unworthy to perform dehumanizing sex acts on these men or women for paltry amounts of money, but that would be uncharitable to people that might attempt to make a living in this fashion.

As I said, I won’t debate the Iraq War; it’s a pointless, tiresome debate. I will, however, defend the integrity of the men and women of the US Armed forces that did fulfill their obligations despite perhaps disagreeing with the war. Their actions were not contemptuous and had any soldier been ordered to do anything contemptuous (like shoot a prisoner in the head) they could legally refuse or face prosecution.

Defend a position? You are making my point for me. My point is (once again) spineless cowards of questionable character are pandered to by the Democratic Party. As a result, we end up with Presidents unqualified to lead the military. Do you understand now?

37. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #279775 by zeroangel on November 6, 2008 at 11:50 am

OK, I’m back.

Wosret:

Well... I would hope that you don't think that stating that the war was founded on lies and distortions, and one is morally obligated to disagree with their country when it is wrong is "pontification".

Let’s say I agree with you that the war was founded on lies and distortions and is wrong. You said me “fighting” in the Iraq War is contemptuous. As Al-rawandi pointed out, you don’t even know what my job was, but really it’s immaterial.

Considering the asymmetric warfare that goes on in Iraq, it’s entirely possible for anyone from infantry to clerk to find themselves in a direct-fire situation, or at the least, at the risk of dying (indirect fire or IEDs). I suppose you think that the only moral thing to do is either A. refuse orders to Iraq as did 1LT Watada (risking jail and possibly abandoning any family that might depend on you; not to mention breaking the concepts lawful orders, duty, civilian authority over the military, etc.), or B. serve where ordered and just refuse to “fight,” perhaps by allowing the enemy to shoot at you and your friends without shooting back (again risking jail or death). The reality is things are seldom “black and white” and it is entirely possible for a soldier to do his duty and not do anything “contemptuous.” No doubt you must think that the Iraq War is somewhere on par with Nazis invading Poland. Rest assured though, I didn’t shoot any kneeling Iraq’s in the back of the head.

Anyhow, to the point, your ideas are the very definition of pontificating:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pontificate[2]

2: to speak or express opinions in a pompous or dogmatic way

Calling my service “contemptuous” while you have never been faced with a similar choice is indeed rather pompous. Meanwhile, your depiction of the moral dilemma faced is certainly dogmatic. So, yes, you are pontificating.

You're quite right. Would I have the courage of my convictions when push comes to shove? I would like to think so, but I have not been in such a situation, so I can't say for sure.

I am sure you would like to think so. The fact is all you have done on the topic is think. Were your convictions so strong I would expect that you would be in Iraq right now helping “freedom fighters” liberate Iraq from the USA. Or perhaps you might be there building schools, something that US soldiers do:

http://www.army.mil/-news/2007/02/14/1840-engineers-build-high-school-in-northern-baghdad/

…but you aren’t, you are telling a war veteran his actions were contemptuous. Not that it matters to me, since it’s not the first time I have had to listen to these opinions, but you might consider your words a tad more carefully so you don’t come across as sounding like a pontificating ass, or wet rat(?)

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wet rat

Al-rawandi, is that what you meant? Haha. Geeez.

Bonzai:

Oops, I think we all got confused with who said what for a minute *smile*.

38. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #279669 by zeroangel on November 6, 2008 at 8:41 am

Worset:

I am content to leave it at that for now. I have other things to do currently, so I am not going to bother with a long reply.

Bonzai:

What on earth are you talking about now? I said I did go and was faced with the aforementioned choice. I haven't even voiced my opinion on the Iraq War yet.

*sigh* I'll be back later, I really should pay more attention to work.

39. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #279653 by zeroangel on November 6, 2008 at 8:21 am

When your country is wrong, is when the limit should become visible.

Fortunately for you Worset, you can comfortably pontificate about warfare and morality from your lazy-boy. I am not going to debate the Iraq War here, but I will say this:

It's one thing to talk about what one "should" do when their nation is at war. It's quite another to actually A. Put your own life at risk by engaging the enemy or B. Put your freedom (or life) at risk by disobeying the legal orders of your superiors and President.

40. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #279647 by zeroangel on November 6, 2008 at 8:14 am

Worset:

There is nothing more practical then voting your conscience in the ridiculous electoral college system we have. No matter how I voted, it truly wouldn’t matter considering my state was nowhere near a “swing state.” Voting my conscience and a “confidence vote” was immensely practical and satisfying.

Unequivocally yes.

It is you who are the naïve one. Nothing about my tour of duty was contemptuous and there were more than a few Iraqis that were glad I served with them.

41. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #279619 by zeroangel on November 6, 2008 at 7:50 am

Bonzai:

I never said Obama has contempt for the military. I said the far-left does and I said Democrats pander to them.

Now we are even.

I suppose so, I guess I won’t apologize for being a dick either. *smile*

Worset:

I voted for a third party. As for the military, as I said, necessary evil. Obama might not have contempt for the military, but he certainly doesn’t have much experience with it and his party regularly panders to the far-left and pacifists. This much makes me worry about how well he will handle foreign threats and things related to the military. He has to flex his muscles IMHO.

I served in the military and fought in Iraq, was what I did there contemptuous?

42. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #279602 by zeroangel on November 6, 2008 at 7:37 am

Worset:

Bonzai had made that exact mistake in another thread when he accused me of supporting McCain/Palin. He acknowledged that mistake in #748 in this thread.

I will reread what he wrote in this thread later.

The military is a nessecery evil. More on that in one second.

43. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #279565 by zeroangel on November 6, 2008 at 7:10 am

Obama need to show his military chops to these people, or they will be emboldened.

Absolutely. It is an unfortunate thing, but the far-left (and by extension the Democrats that pander to them) have what I can only describe as utter contempt for the military.

Al's earlier post, which I will repost here:

http://www.logictimes.com/A-Forgotten-War.htm

...is a perfect example of this contempt.

It is no small wonder that the NCO's and officers of the armed forces are fairly right leaning for a myriad of reasons. One of those reasons is the utter contempt the far-left has for all things military.

Worset: #759

I wonder why he made the mistake then.

44. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #279551 by zeroangel on November 6, 2008 at 6:55 am

Bonzai:

Thank you for the belated acknowledgement of your error. How nice of you.

Maybe I do need to take logic 101 and maybe I don't, but at least I know I don’t need to take it from you. *smile*.

Tyler Durden:

Merely an observation. Surely there is a person that could make both our friends happy and our enemies upset?

45. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #279544 by zeroangel on November 6, 2008 at 6:51 am

Tyler Durden:

al, could you not hear the entire planet sigh with relief when Obama was elected :)

Yes, this is true, and it's nice that our friends and allies approve. Unfortunately, our enemies were also sighing with relief.

46. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #279533 by zeroangel on November 6, 2008 at 6:46 am

Al-rawandi:

You are wasting your time. The first time Bonzai had something to say about something I posted he made the same false dicotomy error.

The two-party system is so ingrained in people's heads that otherwise intelligent people often fall into the same trap, that is, criticism of A equals support of B.

47. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #279025 by zeroangel on November 5, 2008 at 1:34 pm

Al-rawandi:

Votes might have counted in those places, but not here in Jersey in 2008.

Edit: NVM, I read the rest of your posting and it seems we agree.

OK, I am taking off for now. See you all later.

48. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #279008 by zeroangel on November 5, 2008 at 1:19 pm

Either way, my vote didn't count

Yes. This is one reason why I voted for a 3rd party candidate.

49. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #278993 by zeroangel on November 5, 2008 at 1:12 pm

Annabanana:

how exactly would you go about doing that?

Force of arms is one way. I am not nearly there myself as I believe the American system is among the best.

Funny thing though, if I actually believed half of the rhetoric from either side I probably would be ready to go.

50. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #278969 by zeroangel on November 5, 2008 at 1:01 pm

While my feelings on Palin should be clear by now, I am not certain about the above:

he will have been better than McCain

McCain is an experienced statesmen, not to mention he proved in Hanoi just how dedicated he is to this country.

No matter how much you may disagree with McCain's politics; Obama has done nothing to serve this country on the magnitude that John McCain has.

*bracing for flames*