Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Universe Prince

Pages: 1 ... 230 231 [232] 233 234 ... 244
3466
3DHS / Re: Not learning from our mistakes
« on: November 25, 2006, 03:41:11 AM »
Quote from: sirs on November 24, 2006, 03:48:18 AM

That's all fine and dandy, as long as they don't pose a threat to our way of life, our existance.  Ironically, you helped teach me that, way back when.  When the threat is deemed valid, we then are obligated to do something about it....<Horse>


That depends on what you mean by "pose a threat". Anyone with a gun may pose a threat to my existence. That doesn't mean I have an obligation to threaten the existence of anyone with a gun. In any case, defending oneself does not need to involve preemptively beating down others.


Quote from: sirs on November 24, 2006, 03:48:18 AM

No, they're not.  And that's the problem we're having here.  You're making them out as nearly analogus, (in other words, blurring the 2), and I'm pointing out how they're NOT. <Cart>  We could have taken out the WMD threat and then just left.  How would that have been "fixing Iraq" then, if they're "essentially the same thing"??


No, I'm saying that the taking out of WMD and fixing Iraq are essentially the same thing. That's not blurring them. That's pointing out that they're essentially the same and that using different words doesn't alter the reality. So far your protestations that such was not "fixing" Iraq amount to saying that it just wasn't. So how would making war on Iraq to take out the Iraqi government and the WMD not be "fixing" Iraq since that was the perceived problem in the first place? Yes, I know it might have left the Iraqis without our help in the aftermath, but that particular bit of "fixing" Iraq does not mean that making war on Iraq to take out the Iraqi government and the WMD was not an attempt to "fix" Iraq. So please, explain it to me.

3467
3DHS / Re: Blair Enacts Brass-like Plan for Parental Training
« on: November 25, 2006, 02:50:49 AM »
Quote from: Brassmask on November 23, 2006, 06:12:19 PM

Dude, if a kid winds up in front of a judge then he's done something but not necessarily committed a crime.


And not necessarily something for which he should face a judge.

Quote from: Brassmask on November 23, 2006, 06:12:19 PM

As for the cycle, it is a continuous cycle that doesn't just begin when a kid throws a rock through a window or gets into fights at school.


I got into a couple of fights in high school. What about it?

Quote from: Brassmask on November 23, 2006, 06:12:19 PM

The parents are responsible and it may be that they weren't properly instructed as a child.  It could be that they never even learned how to communicate from their own parents.  This is what a lot of people don't understand about the juvenile court system.  A lot of people think it is solely a prison system for kids who commit crimes.  IT AIN'T, chuckles.  It ain't just a jail for kids.  There is a difference between "troubled kids" and "child criminals".

In the end, the parent is responsible for the kid that is underage.  IF that parent is not equipped to raise a child, then a judge may instruct the "system" to equip that parent. If that means a refrigerator or a paying the rent for a month, that can be done, but the "system" is about teaching people to fish rather than giving them a fish now.

Ignorance is the problem not malice.  People are not born to steal.


You seem to have an idealized view of it. But I do not share your confidence that the government is the best fishing tutor.

Quote from: Brassmask on November 23, 2006, 06:12:19 PM

This idea that Blair wants to just tell people the best way to raise a kid is simply wrong.  What they will be doing is helping parents who had parents who couldn't communicate with learn to communicate with their own kids so those kids aren't out looking for communication and connections with, say, gangs.  So, before you get all wacky with the "force" and "compel", think how much better life would be if everyone had a decent childhood instead of just some and then the rest having crappy ones that lead to people being sociopaths who think that the rules don't apply to them and they can carjack you a block from your house.  It's in your own interest.

Just punishing crimes never works.  Ask any parent.


Before you get all wacky with "think how much better life would be", consider that not everyone agrees on what constitutes a decent childhood. Some people think a decent childhood means being raised by God-fearing people, by a man and woman only, no same-sex couples, no questioning the Bible. Passing through a room where my father was watching the O'Reilly show, some fellow was on the screen explaining that teaching evolution was partly to blame for the Columbine school shootings. While I have no doubt life would be better if every person had a decent childhood, I do simply do not trust government to be the best decider of what is and is not a decent childhood. I almost hate to bring this up, but if we are to follow this through, the Nazis had a plan for children having a decent childhood as well. Just wanting children to have a decent childhood is not good enough. And while I realize there is a notion that we can somehow make utopia happen where everyone has a decent childhood and food, et cetera, if we just pass enough laws, but I don't believe that notion is anything other than naive. No, there is nothing wrong with wanting to put an end to the bad things that happen in life, and nothing wrong with trying to accomplish that. But we won't accomplish that by trying to control life, no matter how good our intentions might be.

3468
3DHS / Re: Before - and After - Iraq
« on: November 25, 2006, 02:12:57 AM »
Quote from: BT on November 24, 2006, 02:36:33 AM

You present your opinion as if it were fact.


Yes. Mr. Hanson believes his opinion is the truth, and I believe my opinion is the truth. So what?

Quote from: BT on November 24, 2006, 02:36:33 AM

Can you not point to one instance where conflicts in ideology were solved at the point of a bayonet?


Sure I can. So? Are you suggesting that because some conflicts seem to have been solved by military force then military force is the best way to handle such conflicts always? I once had a conflict of ideology/interest with a bully. I solved it by throwing my shoes at his head and making it clear in no uncertain terms that I was not going to take his bullying anymore. He left me alone. But that hardly seems like a proper pattern for all or even most conflicts of ideology/interest that I may have with other people. Seems to me if I settled all or most conflicts in such a manner, I would become the bully and end up with few if any friends. Seems to me, I am better off finding peaceful solutions. If I use force, I do so rare instances, not as a standard mode of operation. I attempt as a standard mode of operation getting along with others, acting non-aggressively toward others, letting others peacefully disagree with me, even those who would use government to enforce their preferences. Speaking of which, I do not advocate armed and/or violent revolution against the government or against those who promote policies with which I could be said to in ideological conflict. I doubt seriously that a more militant and/or more aggressive approach would achieve much good. Do you have some reason why I should think otherwise?

3469
3DHS / Re: Before - and After - Iraq
« on: November 24, 2006, 02:32:58 AM »
Quote from: Victor Davis Hanson on November 24, 2006, 12:35:38 AM

And long after the present furor over Iraq dies down, the idea of trying to help democratic reformers fight terrorists, and to distance America from failed regimes that are antithetical to our values, simply will not go away.

That tough idealism will stay - because in the end it is the only right and smart thing to do.
 

We will not achieve that idealism until we stop trying to make it happen by military force. And stopping that is the right and smart thing to do.

3470
3DHS / Re: I didn't raise my boy to be a soldier
« on: November 24, 2006, 02:26:17 AM »
Quote from: Plane on November 23, 2006, 01:48:55 AM

For most of its victims , seduced would be a better word.


So can we agree then that people are not being attacked by drugs? Suggesting people are attacked by drugs is like suggesting that Wal-Mart is assaulting the urban population or the middle class. It is a voluntary choice made by people, not an instance of people being attacked by Triffid-like marijuana plants.

3471
3DHS / Re: Not learning from our mistakes
« on: November 24, 2006, 02:19:51 AM »
Quote from: Plane on November 23, 2006, 01:23:43 AM

I credit the war in Iraq as being an attempt to tackle terrorism at its root causes.


Of course it was. That does not, however, mean remaining there is the best course of action.

3472
3DHS / Re: Not learning from our mistakes
« on: November 24, 2006, 02:17:31 AM »
Quote from: sirs on November 23, 2006, 02:29:43 AM

No, no, no, I'm playing reality.  You're the one trying to blurr intentions.  We did not intend to go into Iraq to "fix it".  We went into Iraq to specifically take out the WMD threat that existed (per the global intel), and as a result of THAT action, now we do have a moral & geopolitical obligation to fix it.  Horse --> cart....Intentions --> Consequences


I'm not blurring anything. You can say we didn't go into Iraq to fix Iraq but to take out the WMD, but that's like saying we're we're digging a retention pond rather than a drainage ditch. Taking out WMD, fixing Iraq, essentially the same thing. There was a perceived problem, and the solution decided upon was to fix the perceived problem by military force. That is the reality.

And if you really want to talk about moral obligation, then frankly America, or rather the U.S. government, has a moral obligation to start leaving other people alone. That means here at home and everywhere else. Yes, there are people in the world who want to kill us, but we are not going to solve that by a continuation of the policies and attitudes that have gone before. Clearly those policies and attitudes have not stopped the emergence of terrorism and hatred toward the U.S. And so just as clearly, the government needs to adjust to different policies and different attitudes. No, there is no need to see if America can negotiate with terrorists or to appease them. But the government also has zero business letting them define for America what American foreign policy is supposed to be. And if the government insists that America has some obligation to do the opposite of what they demand, then the government is letting them define the terms of the situation, and that is wrong (to put it politely). America has little reason to worry about appeasing them, because we cannot actually do so. But the U.S government should be concerned about doing what is right, and if doing what is right means something the terrorists claim to want happens, the U.S. government still has a moral obligation to do the right thing.

One can argue that not using SWAT units with no-knock warrants to storm into people's houses to look for drugs just appeases the drug dealers, but that doesn't make using the SWAT units in that fashion a course of action that needs to continue. One can argue that not raising taxes just appeases the wealthy, but that does not make raising taxes a proper course of action. But, but, but, the "war on terrorism" is about saving lives, yes, I know. I'm not saying don't go after the terrorists. I'm the U.S. government needs to stop trying to fix the world by force. It's not going to happen. Why? Because Intentions-->Actions-->Consequences, that's why. Good intentions are not enough to justify wrong actions. Everyone claims good intentions. The Nazis claimed good intentions. Racists claim good intentions. Intentions, schmentions. If the actions are wrong, then the actions are wrong regardless of the intentions. And when bad consequences arise after wrong actions, it is asinine to insist that further wrong actions are the way to deal with those consequences. The way to get Good Intentions-->Good Consequences is through Good Actions. And if what you have is Good Intentions-->Bad Consequences, then you really need to rethink the Actions between the two. That is where we are, and that is reality.

3473
3DHS / Re: Blair Enacts Brass-like Plan for Parental Training
« on: November 23, 2006, 01:00:26 PM »
Quote from: Brassmask on November 23, 2006, 01:16:29 AM

It seems that Blair is targeting kids and parents who have already run afoul of the law or are making trouble in schools and the like.  He's not sending supernannies door-to-door to force their way in to tell parents what they are doing wrong.


The article says, "Under the measures, courts will also be encouraged to order compulsory lessons in a wider number of cases, while classes may also be given to parents whose children have engaged in anti-social behaviour rather than in crime." And "Laying the ground for the publication of proposals to force more fathers and mothers to attend parenting classes, Mr Blair said that an 'overwhelming majority' of people would welcome outside assistance." Words like "compulsory" and "force" sure make it look he wants the government to force its way into telling parents what to do.

Quote from: Brassmask on November 23, 2006, 01:16:29 AM

As my wife is part of this world in her daily job, it is more than sensible to suggest (or even compel) mothers or parents (in the odd case of an actual couple showing up to JC, most are single mothers) to avail themselves of some basic child rearing skills or even basic conflict resolution or communication classes.


Sensible to suggest, yes. To compel by law, no.

Quote from: Brassmask on November 23, 2006, 01:16:29 AM

This is not just kids making D's and not buckling down to bring their grades up.  This is kids staying out all night and drinking and lord knows what else.  And the mother is either powerless or unwilling to bring the child to heel.  This is breakdown of society kind of stuff.  This cycle must be broken.


Cycle? What is the cycle? If the child is breaking the law, then punish the child. I'm not even opposed to punishing the parents. But having the government decide what is and is not anti-social behavior and then to compel conformity, this is not the correct solution. If it were Pat Robertson and his pals trying to accomplish this, I think you would not be so gung-ho about it.

Quote from: Brassmask on November 23, 2006, 01:16:29 AM

So, get your panties all twisted if you like or you can go down and sit in JC court for a few days and get a real feel for how things are here in reality.


Ah yes, the old "here in reality" bit. It's a dumb bit. No one said there were no problems or no children with behavioral problems. But that there is a problem does not make government and legislation the best and/or only solution. Because here in reality, that "solution" more often than not causes more problems than it solves, if it solves anything at all. I'm all for there being parenting classes and for encouraging parents and prospective parents to attend. Compelling attendance to such classes and attempting to legally mandate conformity to some group's preferred behavioral standards is, however, a really bad idea. Unless one likes fascism. And I don't.

3474
3DHS / Re: Not learning from our mistakes
« on: November 23, 2006, 01:15:31 AM »
Quote from: sirs on November 22, 2006, 12:46:15 AM

It's called "cart....horse"......."intentions" --> "consequences".  The fact we're having to "fix Iraq" now was in no way why we went IN to Iraq in the 1st place.  Never has been.


As I said before, you're playing semantics. If the winning objective from the beginning was, as you said, to have the Iraqis handling their own security, then the goal, from the beginning, has been to fix Iraq. If the goal was to deal with the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and his supposed WMD, then the goal was to fix Iraq. Yes, I get that you don't want to call it "fixing" Iraq, but whatever you want to call it, my point remains. Apparently we still think we can fix the world if we just use enough military force, never realizing that the desire to fix the world is where we are going wrong in the first place.

3475
3DHS / Re: I didn't raise my boy to be a soldier
« on: November 23, 2006, 12:47:14 AM »
Quote from: Xavier_Onassis on November 21, 2006, 09:23:16 AM
Are we being attacked by drugs?

Quote from: Plane on November 22, 2006, 02:13:50 AM
Yes

Plane, would you please explain in what way, exactly, we are being attacked by drugs? Thank you.

3476
3DHS / Re: Blair Enacts Brass-like Plan for Parental Training
« on: November 23, 2006, 12:42:49 AM »
Quote from: Brassmask on November 22, 2006, 04:54:52 PM

What would you call a prison?  Or a police force?  Or laws for that matter?

It seems they are all forms of government enforced behavioral control.


Do you not see the difference between putting someone in jail for stealing and a government program for disciplining supposedly anti-social children? But after a fashion, you do make a point. Just not the one that you probably intended to make. Prisons, law enforcement and legislation are routinely used in this country for ridiculous levels of behavioral control. Example: the "war on drugs". But I'm not blaming the government. Nope, I'm blaming the people.

The people, us, the voters, we demand that government do something to fix this or that problem, as if life can be made fair and good via legislation. We demand that what we believe should be made into law to protect us from our neighbors and, naturally with all the best of intentions, to protect our neighbors from themselves. And I have little doubt that soon enough America will come to demand government run parenting classes mandated by law. Or perhaps Congressman Rangel's draft legislation will simply be expanded to include some language from Senator Kerry's idea to mandate volunteerism in schools. And who knows but that maybe some Republicans will get back on the mental health bandwagon and push again for all children to receive mental health examinations in schools so that the children can get the proper medications. All of this will be for the children, of course, so anyone who objects will be just a mean bastard who cares nothing about our children.

Yes, letting government decide what is proper social behavior and what is anti-social behavior, what is the proper mental attitude toward society and what is anti-social thinking will do wonders for our society. Think of the crime that we might stop by having our children trained and medicated properly from a young age. Yes indeed, I never cease to be amazed that the folks who holler the loudest about oligarchies and the wealthy elites seem to be so eager to have government interfere in life. It's almost as if they were complaining about arson and demanding to know why the government hasn't come to set their houses on fire. Or at least their books.

3477
3DHS / Re: Blair Enacts Brass-like Plan for Parental Training
« on: November 22, 2006, 04:47:50 PM »
Government enforced behavioral control. Wow. How sad.

3478
3DHS / Re: There really are Primitive Baptists
« on: November 22, 2006, 12:17:05 AM »
Thanks for the info, Xavier. I had never heard of Primitive Baptists before. And however rigid their beliefs might be, Christianity as a whole is not. I never said there were no Christians with rigid beliefs. And even with this example, there still exists with Christianity freedom of theological debate and difference that seems severely lacking with Islam. And to be fair, just as we can find rigid sects within Christianity, we can also find liberal sects within Islam. But at the same time, the most rigid sects in Christianity are really at the fringe, while the liberal sects are the ones at the fringe within Islam. At least, that is my understanding of the situation, and the information about Primitive Baptists does not give me sufficient reason to believe I'm wrong.

3479
3DHS / Re: Not learning from our mistakes
« on: November 21, 2006, 11:42:40 PM »
Quote from: sirs on November 21, 2006, 07:12:30 PM

Close, which should be in no way confused with trying "to fix the world" or to even "fix Iraq".  Specifically, it was to "fix the WMD threat" that Saddam/Iraq posed, according to the intel.  The nation building (fixing Iraq) that followed was a necessary consequence, as a result of why we went in, "in the 1st place"


To fix the WMD threat... from here you appear to be playing semantics. We didn't go into Iraq to fix Iraq or the world, but we did go in to fix the WMD threat, and the won-the-war-in-Iraq scenario has been when the Iraqis are able to handle their own security and has been since the the inception of the idea of taking out of Saddam, but we didn't go in to fix Iraq. This is kinda like saying the plumber isn't there to repair the leaky pipe, he's just there to repair the leak in the pipe. The words are slightly different, but the action and intent are exactly the same either way.

3480
3DHS / Re: The Grandeur of Islam
« on: November 21, 2006, 11:19:16 PM »
Quote from: kimba1 on November 21, 2006, 06:58:34 PM

these guys think all other christians are inferior


Okay. So?

Pages: 1 ... 230 231 [232] 233 234 ... 244