901. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #280911 by Wosret on November 8, 2008 at 9:43 pm

1052. Comment #280907 by zeroangel

I haven't actually outlined my position on the war, nor do I feel the need. It isn't relevant to my showing that you have nothing of substance to add. So you are left ignoring what I put forward, and hurling assertions about what I think. That even if true would not invalid any point I may make, but would just allow you to feel morally superior to me.

Now, are you incapable of answering my question? Which is it? You have both argued that you are obligated to both follow the orders of your country no matter what, and to refuse them when they are contemptible. Which is it? Under what standard is this judged? Yours?

even after I spelled it out for you using the example of Republicans and science

You mean like the creationist you voted for? Yes...of course christian republicans are ignorant of science, thus far-leftists are ignorant of the military. Why couldn't I see the obvious logic there? I'm so blind. It is an assertion, that you clearly can't substantiate. Generalized from a couple people you heard.

So far smears tortured logic and assertion is all I see.

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?

What is the point behind this question? Just another jumping off point from which to wage long-winded moralizing diatribes about what a bastard I am with no reference to anything other than your own personal dislike, and appeals to emotion?

902. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #280898 by Wosret on November 8, 2008 at 7:30 pm

1048. Comment #280897 by Bonzai

You're clearly not understanding. Only America's judgment on legality, and Zero's personal opinion of contemptiblity matters.

If the US gives you an illegal order that would be contemptible, and you could refuse, but if the government deems it legal then you must follow and it can't possibly be contemptible. As Stephen Colbert says, which part of my circle don't you want to get on?

903. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #280895 by Wosret on November 8, 2008 at 7:15 pm

1046. Comment #280894 by zeroangel

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'm almost as far left as one could be according to the political compass. Al is pretty damn far left too I guess. Matched with Gandhi. You're merely smearing people you don't like.

What facts have you corrected about the military? All I've seen you argue is personal value judgments about what is and isn't contemptible in your opinion. What are they ignorant of? Stuff you posted about someone thinking they don't need a military? So he is far-left and thinks that, thus is justifies saying that "the far-left" thinks that?

I noticed that you refused to answer my questions, I wonder why.

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.

You mean how he agreed with me about arguments from authority? Perhaps you should go read our exchange again.

904. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #280886 by Wosret on November 8, 2008 at 5:31 pm

1039. Comment #280865 by zeroangel

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.

To you? All you have offered on this thread, is smears and demonizations of "leftists" and people that you don't like. I haven't seen you actually make a point about anything, or counter any point with anything other than character attacks that make you feel you can then just hand-wave their points away because you don't deem them a decent enough person. What about the millions of "leftist" you slander with unjustified, childish, oversimplified, and mean-spirited smears and accusations?

I don't need to clarify a damn thing so that you may judge my character poorly or favorably. Who do you think you are? What point does it serve? And what is the relevance? Are you making any actually point about anything? Have you been since your arrival here? Or has it been solely to moralize and condescend?

You even look at my profile for more information to wage lame, and petty attacks on me about?

It astonishes me that you would think that I would be willing to take you up on an argument about whether I'm a decent person in your eyes or not.

I'll address the only actual point you try to make, though its weakness makes it clear why you prop your posts up with ad hominem, as a distraction.

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.

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? Or are you saying that nothing contemptible can be ordered by your government? Were Nazi soldiers justified in their participation in death camps? Or is it only your country that is infallible?

…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.

Explain the relevance to any point you might make, or argument you might wage and I'll do just that. If, however, it is so you can offer a personal judgment of my person -- then I'm not interested.

905. Obama the Secularist

Comment #280805 by Wosret on November 8, 2008 at 11:39 am

100. Comment #280804 by Bonzai

(for different reasons, of course)

Because they believe in witches?

906. Anti-religion agenda among social media users

Comment #280803 by Wosret on November 8, 2008 at 11:35 am

59. Comment #280798 by Steve Zara

I'll forgive you this time.

60. Comment #280799 by The Hogfather

Attempting to argue for a position -- especially on a factual matter, such as the ontological status of a magic-super-person -- doesn't make you religious. Only an idiot would say otherwise.

907. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #280797 by Wosret on November 8, 2008 at 11:19 am

93. Comment #280792 by Nova

Of course! When P.Z. says one thing, he means a completely different and unrelated thing! It all makes perfect sense when you replace the things he says with completely different things!

908. Anti-religion agenda among social media users

Comment #280795 by Wosret on November 8, 2008 at 11:15 am

56. Comment #280788 by youmemeyou

Your attempt at wit falls flat and nonsensical. Atheists can be religious, but that doesn't make atheism a religion.

Atheism fits exactly zero of the requirements of a religion by definition, no matter how loosely you define it.

909. Tolerance Over Race Can Spread, Studies Find

Comment #280791 by Wosret on November 8, 2008 at 11:06 am

23. Comment #280786 by Steve Zara

How could you watch that? No one even has superpowers!

910. Obama the Secularist

Comment #280758 by Wosret on November 8, 2008 at 8:37 am

91. Comment #280754 by debaser71

You want more than is reasonably possible. All or nothing. I'll take compromise over nothing. Sure, I'd rather all, and the moment the opportunity for all of my political goals arose, then I of course would attempt to snatch them, but there is no sense in complaining that I'm not getting everything I want when the opportunity isn't available.

Obama isn't the president of secularists, he is the president of all Americans, and even if he thinks groups are wrong he is right to attempt to compromise things.

He can't stand up there and tell a church that they're all wrong about everything, and the secularists are right. He can't pick sides, and he can't quibble over wording and phrasing that you don't like. He has to speak to them, and using terms they use.

I think to want everything your way, to the point of semantic quibbling even is just plain unreasonable. It is silly, and near sighted. Unwilling to trade small victories for large ones.

To actually say "Obama's good and everything, but he isn't perfect" as if that is news to anyone astonishes me. Of course he isn't, and I don't think anyone that expressed assent agrees with everything he says, or even remotely thinks that he is perfect. I think that they see a bigger picture, and are not so worried about trivialities.

911. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #280746 by Wosret on November 8, 2008 at 7:57 am

72. Comment #280738 by j.mills

Wosret (hardly recognise you without your lesbians)

I'll soon revert. I was recently told by someone that I give off an air of maturity without my anime girls avatars. I wouldn't want to do that, seems like borderline dishonesty!

you're teetering on forming a community of mutually affirming non-communitarians.

I'm all for a community, just not any exclusive ones. I'd even be willing to grant admission to those that don't think I'm great. Despite knowing that they must suffer from mental deficiencies.

912. Obama the Secularist

Comment #280735 by Wosret on November 8, 2008 at 7:19 am

83. Comment #280733 by debaser71

While you're thinking critically think reasonably and pragmatically. You can't expect to get things 100% how you would want them.

913. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #280727 by Wosret on November 8, 2008 at 6:52 am

68. Comment #280726 by Steve Zara

I also value your opinion, so I consider it somewhat self-affirming when we agree.

I agree, and I have also said on a few different occasions that if "atheist" ever comes to mean anything other than a "disbelief in god/s", then I will no longer be willing to identify myself as such.

I've never much liked labels anyway. They rarely actually capture positions accurately. They are more a general shorthand than anything.

914. Unknown 'Structures' Tugging at Universe, Study Says

Comment #280697 by Wosret on November 8, 2008 at 4:45 am

87. Comment #280694 by Oystein Elgaroy

Oh, okay. I didn't know that.

915. Unknown 'Structures' Tugging at Universe, Study Says

Comment #280691 by Wosret on November 8, 2008 at 4:06 am

85. Comment #280690 by Oystein Elgaroy

If there are pockets of distorted space in the universe will that be a factor in anything? I've heard that light can possibly travel faster in distorted space.

916. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #280687 by Wosret on November 8, 2008 at 3:56 am

61. Comment #280685 by MRA

Many of the people on this site actually do meet. A couple people even got married. I'm not one of them, but just a thought.

917. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #280683 by Wosret on November 8, 2008 at 3:52 am

56. Comment #280677 by Brian English

I stand corrected.

58. Comment #280680 by Kraes85

"Life after death" always seemed like such an obvious contradiction of terms to me. They're mutually exclusive.

918. Unknown 'Structures' Tugging at Universe, Study Says

Comment #280682 by Wosret on November 8, 2008 at 3:50 am

81. Comment #280669 by Dr Doctor

I don't know what I'm talking about, but I don't think so.

The expansion being the distance between each object growing at a rate greater than light. Space expands equally everywhere like -- well -- a loaf of bread. The example I was given for the explanation was a cookie. More delicious, but quite similar to Steve's loaf of bread, though I liked his better than the cookie one as well -- anyway.

I would assume that if point A where moving away from point B at 60% the speed of light, and point B was moving away from point A at 60% the speed of light, then the space between the two points would grow by a rate of 120% the speed of light, but the light traveling from point A to B or B to A would only need to travel slightly faster than 60% the speed of light in order to reach the other point.

If I'm right, then space can be expanding at a rate faster than light, and there would still not be an event horizon.

919. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #280674 by Wosret on November 8, 2008 at 3:16 am

53. Comment #280671 by Bonzai

Nah, God's an atheist.

920. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #280670 by Wosret on November 8, 2008 at 2:58 am

I find this somewhat unsettling, but also interesting. Personally, I loath the concept of exclusive "communities". I'd gather feel community from a human solidarity of all peoples and groups, and not confine myself to exclusive communities. I don't know if I'm alone in feeling this way, but I'd rather a community of everyone then of only some.

If there is a trade to be had -- as this article appears to imply to me -- between personal happiness, and societal health -- then that is a deal I'm willing to make. After all, how could I ever be happy with all of this liberal guilt anyway?

20. Comment #280495 by Steve Zara

I couldn't agree more, and I've argued to this effect on several occasions.

28. Comment #280517 by phil rimmer

I feel the same way, and have also elucidated quite similar opinions on charity.

921. Anti-religion agenda among social media users

Comment #280658 by Wosret on November 8, 2008 at 2:26 am

5. Comment #280287 by Tyler Durden

Tenet: there are no god/s.

Holy books: Darwin's: the theory of evolution [sic].

Didn't you know that if you try to convince anyone of anything then you must be religious. If it chirps like a bird, and eats nuts then it must be a monkey -- which you believe to be your uncle!

30. Comment #280373 by Steve Zara

Lighten up brother Steve. Shall we call Father Dawkin's in to bless you?

31. Comment #280375 by Diacanu

What does one have to do to not have a religion? Stop breathing?

I find your refusal to move about quite dogmatic!

51. Comment #280595 by DamnDirtyApe

We're not part of a massive secret atheist conspiracy!

Of course we're not...*shifts eyes*.

922. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #280587 by Wosret on November 7, 2008 at 11:34 pm

1005. Comment #280539 by Laurie Fraser

righton - here on RDnet we like to be civil and courteous to other posters, even when we don't agree with their opinions. I would remind all posters that it is the interest of fairness and civility that we moderate our language at all times.

Even though I know you're joking, I think you're right.

I regret what I said to Al earlier. I was wrong to call him a "stupid fuck" and to accuse him of dishonesty. I was just all pissed off. He has an amazing natural talent for pissing people off, because I'm not easily pissed off. I apologize for my behavior.

923. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #280344 by Wosret on November 7, 2008 at 11:30 am

910. Comment #280337 by Steve Zara

Incidentally, did you find out where Sweden was?

Isn't that in never never land? I believe I heard that's where it was.

924. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #280320 by Wosret on November 7, 2008 at 10:53 am

898. Comment #280318 by al-rawandi

That appeals to authority are not justification in themselves. Things need to be justified on their own merits.

925. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #280317 by Wosret on November 7, 2008 at 10:50 am

896. Comment #280315 by zeroangel

Which appears to be nothing but a bald assertion based on your own prejudice to me. One Al was willing to agree with without a single shred of evidence.

On what evidence do you assert that about Bonzai?

926. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #280312 by Wosret on November 7, 2008 at 10:45 am

892. Comment #280309 by al-rawandi

Are you willing to let anything go if the point is something you agree with?

First he says both anecdotes are equally valid, but then says Bonzai was more inclined to believe the other guy because it confirms his biases.

...
...
...
...
He just now is conveying the ancedote... Bonzai did not chose an anecdote that confirms his biases over Zeros...that doesn't make any sense. He didn't hear them at the same time.

How is that accusation even remotely justified?

927. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #280310 by Wosret on November 7, 2008 at 10:39 am

891. Comment #280305 by al-rawandi

Facts? You just admitted that I wasn't wrong. It's trivial because it isn't relevant to the point I was making. You know, the one you refuse to address because you know I'm right, and don't want to have to admit it?

928. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #280289 by Wosret on November 7, 2008 at 9:48 am

You conflate international convention and the UN. That is patently obvious here. My point was that you are woefully ignorant of the matter, and that is obvious.

The UN is an international convention. I think you need to look up the word. Though your unwillingness to address my actual point, and your nick-picking of trivialities tells me that I think we're done.

929. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #280280 by Wosret on November 7, 2008 at 9:34 am

878. Comment #280271 by SharonMcT

It's my fault. I shouldn't have done that... I thought it was funny anyway.

930. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #280277 by Wosret on November 7, 2008 at 9:32 am

877. Comment #280268 by al-rawandi

The UN does not automatically sanction anything based on international convention or disallow it on a similar basis. You apparently think they do.

I wouldn't attempt to divine "apparent" meaning from my words. You appear to be rather bad at that.

Are you going to continue to attack things I never said? And continue to fail to address the point I have now explicated for you several times?

931. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #280262 by Wosret on November 7, 2008 at 9:13 am

870. Comment #280253 by SharonMcT

Sorry, I couldn't help myself. I knew he must have been thinking it. Sorry if it made you feel awkward.

932. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #280261 by Wosret on November 7, 2008 at 9:12 am

869. Comment #280252 by al-rawandi

So what about you conflating international organizations with international standards, was this a "tactic"' Or was it you being an idiot.

I didn't. I used the words "international convention" every single time.

You are merely dodging the point. That things need to be justified on their own merits, and not appealed to authority. Including the army. If you're in an authority based hierarchy, then you are surely there to obey, but that doesn't magically make every order amoral, or action excused.

933. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #280245 by Wosret on November 7, 2008 at 8:51 am

863. Comment #280238 by al-rawandi

What you did was make a stupid remark...

For the third time -- and if you make this mistake a fourth time then I will have no choice but to conclude that you are being consciously dishonest -- I made no remark. Zero repeated made the accusation that that is what "leftists" thought, and I merely agreed to make a point.

I suppose if I had conceded to the argument from design to show that it doesn't demonstrate any specific gods you would be saying I'm now a theist. If you don't understand the tactic of conceding irrelevant points to an argument to show its flaws, and vacuous nature, then you clearly have not been paying enough attention. I think you do, and you are just being dishonest however. I do think you're stupid, but not that stupid.

Awww Sharon, share with alllll of us. I would love to hear your personal assessments of me, made from an online forum.

Wow...if you couldn't see that I was joking...then maybe you are that stupid.

934. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #280236 by Wosret on November 7, 2008 at 8:37 am

SharonMcT, replied to your PM.

I totally agree, Al is all of those things you said. (Now who's mature?).

935. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #280235 by Wosret on November 7, 2008 at 8:34 am

860. Comment #280233 by al-rawandi

Again, if it is not now obvious to you what I was doing, then you are an idiot, or dishonest. I have nothing to prove to you.

936. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #280230 by Wosret on November 7, 2008 at 8:17 am

852. Comment #280221 by al-rawandi

You said zeroangel's participation in the war was "contemptible" and said this "unequivocally". Now you are saying "just kidding". It has nothing to do with what I think of you (whether you care about that or not).

This is again, mendacious, as I pointed it out to Zero. He started making all of these accusations about "leftists" and that they think this and that. I merely said "so what? What's your point". Agreeing to show that he had nothing else to say other than he thought that "leftists" were pricks.

Saying that I said that is a distortion of what happened.

I think you're either a moron, or dishonest if you say that it isn't obvious what I was doing with retrospect.

You dedicate a lot of time to saying this,

That is because you dedicate a lot of time to insulting me you stupid fuck.

937. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #280218 by Wosret on November 7, 2008 at 7:51 am

849. Comment #280216 by al-rawandi

I see you ignored the parts you didn't like.

Guantanamo is a military installation, interrogations are carried out by the military, but I don't know of any evidence of torture.

I've seen some pictures that seemed like pretty good evidence to me. Though...what is evidence to you could be far different.

*facepalm* World opinion does not define "just war". World opinion consistently stands against Israel, largely because they are Jews. Should they await world consent to act in self defense. Your argument is ridiculous.

I said the opposite you fool, you just ignored that part. I was pointing out your appeals to authority were of little value. You seem to agree when you don't agree with the authority.

Standards of human rights are part of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. They are an internal check as well. The UN is a debating society, the Geneva Convention is a signed treaty. I am assuming you can see the difference.

You are again just appealing to authority that you agree with.

Your words were "unequivocally yes". You made it clear what you thought, a little late for rehabilitation.

"Rehabilitation"? Don't make me laugh. I clearly don't care what you think of me.

I do care what a few posters around here think of me, I'm confident that you know that you aren't one of them.

938. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #280214 by Wosret on November 7, 2008 at 7:24 am

846. Comment #280207 by al-rawandi

So there are no military run off-shore prisons where "enhanced interrogation" takes place?

World War II wasn't sanctioned by the UN, the UN didn't even exist.

*rollseyes*... The UN is a good representation of international opinion. It also did exist in the form of the league of nations.

Regarding the Iraq conflict, have you read the UN resolutions' Iraq was the one in violation, the US was (believe it or not) enforcing UN resolutions.Furthermore 'just war' isn't built upon the notion of UN approval, and the Iraqis themselves were initially supportive of the removal of Saddam. The fact is that Russia engaged in a fairly just action in taking action in Georgia, it was not approved by the UN.

So you only appeal to international convention when you agree with it? When it suits you?

You really do live in a simple world.

I would personally say that you don't blindly obey without reason. Any prescription should be justified, no matter who delivers it.

Yet you can freely say when an action or policy is justified on your own evaluation but when I've done this I'm berated, and when the justification for actions one has clearly justified by their own standards (evident by what they feel they can and cannot call contemptuous) I get appeals to authority.

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. I merely said that to deflate, and show the hollowness of what Zero was saying. Big deal, he thinks leftists are pricks. That isn't an interesting point to make. Once that is out of the way you can see that he had nothing else to say.

In case you're slow, I don't actually think I'm the other things I agreed to either.

939. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #280203 by Wosret on November 7, 2008 at 6:52 am

843. Comment #280201 by al-rawandi

WRONG. Soldiers not only have the option but the duty to refuse illegal orders. Orders that violate the Geneva Covention or standards of human rights. If a superior orders a soldier to shoot an infant child, he is legally bound to refuse that order.

This is at odds with the torturing the US does in those secret prisons.

It is also at odds with their participating in the war in general. If they are ordered to do something that international conventions disallow, then why can they participate in a war that was not granted sanction by the UN?

Which is it? Do you obey your government? Or international convention?

Zeroangel was right, you are woefully ignorant.

Apparently I'm a lot of things.

940. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #280197 by Wosret on November 7, 2008 at 6:36 am

838. Comment #280187 by zeroangel

In doing so you would violate the principle of elected civilian leadership over the military.

The majority isn't always right.

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.

Huh? I freely affirmed that before you asked me directly. I thought you had an actual point to make, so I just thought I'd get that out of the way. Guess not.

I will, however, defend the integrity of the men and women of the US Armed forces...

Well, they say that the best defense is an offense I guess. Well done.

Their actions were not contemptuous...

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

had any soldier been ordered to do anything contemptuous...

There is no objective standard of contemptibly. I guess I'm not the only one that pontificates.

...they could legally refuse or face prosecution.

Unless it was an order back by your government -- apparantly. Because in that case you said "In doing so you would violate the principle of elected civilian leadership over the military". You appear to be saying that nothing contemptible can be ordered by "elected civilian leadership"?

Defend a position? You are making my point for me.

If your point has been that lefties are pricks, then good job.

941. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #280082 by Wosret on November 6, 2008 at 10:10 pm

834. Comment #279775 by zeroangel

Yes option A. That is what I would do. But then as a left-wing nut-job who is contemptuous of the military I would clearly never be part of it to begin with. Can't you keep your accusations consistent at least?

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.

This is mendacious, you asked me if that is what I thought. Was it just attempting to bait me so you could play the persecuted victim? I said nothing, or implied nothing against you personally. Nor would I have said anything like that because it would add nothing to the conversation. You asked me what I thought, a yes or no question. Would you have rather I lied? Don't play the victim, and claim I called you anything after you set it all up. This is merely an attempt to dodge the issue, so you can act hurt and victimized by mean old me.

Also, I thought you were calling me wrong, by saying I was pontificating. You were just attempting to smear my character. I see. So far all I see is hand-waving. I'm a big pompous meanie. You don't like what I think. I don't see you saying that I'm wrong. Or why I'm wrong.

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.

You mean if my convictions about not participating in an illegal war were stronger I'd be participating?

This of course yet again merely an attempt to smear my character, as if that refutes any points I may put forward.

Just to get it out of the way, I'm a terrible, terrible prick of a human being. You don't need to address that, full concession on my part. I'm a narcissistic, pompous, arrogant, self-righteous moralizing, self-involved inconsiderate prick. Now, if you wanted to say why I'm wrong, then I may want to dispute that.

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(?)

They were your words actually. It would appear to me that you just set this up to play the victim so you didn't have to actually defend a position.

942. Cassini

Comment #280079 by Wosret on November 6, 2008 at 9:48 pm

Spectacular!

1. Comment #279794 by Vanpastel

You think that's bad? This gave me a chubby.

943. Obama the Secularist

Comment #280073 by Wosret on November 6, 2008 at 8:55 pm

I couldn't be happier. Obama is elevated in my book. I knew that he was a smart and thoughtful guy, but I think that he shows a cleverness, and a pragmatic, realistic, nuanced awareness of society at large, and what is reasonably possible to be accomplished.

I agree with Bonzai that if what he says is true, then we shouldn't care what he personally believes, but, for the record -- I see a humanist that is far more interested in practical achievable humanistic goals than either promoting or stifling religion.

If it was all just astonishingly clever pandering, then I feel sufficiently pandered to.

944. Gay Marriage Outlawed in California

Comment #279710 by Wosret on November 6, 2008 at 9:37 am

291. Comment #279707 by Frankus1122

I stole it from Stephen Colbert.

945. Gay Marriage Outlawed in California

Comment #279705 by Wosret on November 6, 2008 at 9:33 am

286. Comment #279700 by Frankus1122

But my poetry is sometimes not even about my secret desire to be gay-married in my sleep.

946. Gay Marriage Outlawed in California

Comment #279697 by Wosret on November 6, 2008 at 9:24 am

282. Comment #279695 by Frankus1122

I mentioned that the fact that gay marriages are allowed in Canada has resulted in .... well, nothing in terms of the society at large.

Are you joking? I had to buy extra large steel bolt locks for my doors, to prevent the gays from spreading their homosexual agenda by breaking into my home and gay-marrying me while I sleep!

947. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #279683 by Wosret on November 6, 2008 at 8:55 am

831. Comment #279682 by Bonzai

My mistake. I was replying to Al, and then Zero, but I forgot to put his post number above that.

948. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #279671 by Wosret on November 6, 2008 at 8:42 am

820. Comment #279665 by al-rawandi

I never suggested that you were. I was addressing the only two justifications for the invasion that I am aware of.

You suggested that I wasn't a "deep thinker" enough to consider the latter justification. I countered by saying that I didn't think that considering that sufficient was "deep thinking".

No where did I assume anything about your position.

949. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #279662 by Wosret on November 6, 2008 at 8:30 am

808. Comment #279652 by al-rawandi

Hitchens arguments for the invasion I find very convincing. I almost was willing to support it on that basis, but I doubted that it was achievable. It sadly looks like that is the case. If I were wrong, and they did achieve the desired goals, then I would be in support of the next place. This was not the case, and in any case, that was not the basis for the invasion.

I should also say, that I think that acting upon idealism, and wishful thinking without appreciation for what is reasonably achievable...is not "deep thinking".

809. Comment #279653 by zeroangel

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:

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".

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.

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.

950. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #279649 by Wosret on November 6, 2008 at 8:15 am

802. Comment #279640 by al-rawandi

What did zeroangel do; he might have been a medic, a liason to some tribal council, you don't even know. Most soldiers acted in a decent manner and tried to do their very best.

Well, he did say that he "fought". So forgive me for thinking that is what he did.

Though, regardless, I don't think that soldiers are morally except from blame. It is an illegal war, based on lies and distortions. It has cost nearly a million lives, and a massive deficit.

Serving one's country has its limits. When your country is wrong, is when the limit should become visible.