Some Iraqi refugees turn to prostitution

[Plane]

Well you seem to have a lot of faith in the Iraqis' rate of learning to take up democracy,...

Of course I do , I am  not a racist , I ca barely even spell the word.

<<I'll put it another way. Having gone on safari in India and captured a score of prize Bengal tigers, we decide to turn them into sharks, dumping them in the Indian Ocean, where they flail and drown ... but it's their fault for not capitalizing on the opportunity we afforded them.>>

I like that - - captures perfectly the fatal combination of arrogance and ignorance that has become the hallmark of U.S. foreign policy.  In about fifty years from now, when the history of the downfall of America is being written, those two words will figure more prominently than any others.

Unlike you guys , I do not believe that the genetic difference between Sharks and Tigers is comparable to the difference between the diffrent races of Human beings , what I can learn to do they can learn to do. We are a single species. To say that Iraqis are as unable to learn demoracy as Tigers are to become sharks meets the definition of racism entirely.


Trying to maintain that a culture , or  people , are incapable of improvement except through century's of evolution ignores the many examples of cultural cross pollination that continue to occur , is democray more difficult to learn than computers? Even the most virulent anti American Islamofacisist has learned to use computers.

I know it is painfull to you to be caught out as a racist ,but you can deal with it. I have confidence in your human ability to cope , we all have it.

[gipper]

The mark of a moron: taking a very good metaphor which reveals fundamental truths and deconstructing it to show how different it is from the reality you wish. Maybe if you cut your output by a quarter or a half or more, Mr. 4017, you could increase the intelligence of your comments that manyfold.

[Plane]

The mark of a moron: taking a very good metaphor which reveals fundamental truths and deconstructing it to show how different it is from the reality you wish. Maybe if you cut your output by a quarter or a half or more, Mr. 4017, you could increase the intelligence of your comments that manyfold.

What makes a metaphor apt?

I do not think it fundamentally true that adptation requires lots of time for a culture , but if your metaphore proves otherwise you may expand on it as you wish.

I don't think that cultureal diffrences are insurmountable whether we are talking about theirs or ours.

The number of my posts bears no witness to their quality, neither positive nor negative , but I do try to ensure that every poster can expect a reply , even if not to every post.

In my mind a good reply is one that shows some effort at understanding the subject and the comments of the earlyer post , but disagreement is just as valuable as agreement , as long as the attempt of understanding is evident.

[Michael Tee]

<<Unlike you guys , I do not believe that the genetic difference between Sharks and Tigers is comparable to the difference between the diffrent races of Human beings , what I can learn to do they can learn to do. We are a single species. To say that Iraqis are as unable to learn demoracy as Tigers are to become sharks meets the definition of racism entirely.>>

gipper was using a metaphor the point of which was that societies don't adapt as rapidly as you think they can to sudden radical change, particularly when imposed by outside forces.  To go into the specifics of the metaphor - - which is not, could not and was never intended to match all aspects of the actual Iraqi situation item-by-item - - and to seize upon the species difference between tigers and sharks in the metaphor and try to impute from that a racist pattern in gipper's idea - - that's a real cheap shot.


<<Trying to maintain that a culture , or  people , are incapable of improvement except through century's of evolution ignores the many examples of cultural cross pollination that continue to occur. . . >>

Cross-cultural pollination works best in the arts, as a form of radical governmental and societal change, there are few if any examples of it working out successfully.  None come to mind, actually.  Your examples of post-War Germany and Japan are just examples of a near-total ignorance of their history rather than a validation of your bizarre theory.

<< . .  .is democracy more difficult to learn than computers? >>

To ask the question is to answer it.  You can sit down at a computer and come up for air seven years later after mastering every arcane aspect of the thing without having affected in any way the political, social and economic rules which govern your daily life.  A radical change in politics turns everyone's daily life upside down, alters every relationship of power and authority and has major effects on the position of the nation in the world.  Issues as big as war and peace are clearly affected.  How to make the change with acceptable outcomes for each Iraqi's life is immeasurably more complicated than the mastery of mechanical rules such as govern computing because of (a) the impact of the decisions on the lives of the citizens and (b) issues of justice, fairness and peace that are not at all involved in computer studies.

<<Even the most virulent anti American Islamofacisist has learned to use computers.>>

That in itself should answer your question.  If the establishment of a democracy that satisfies all or almost all of the citizens by the manifest advantages which youy are claiming for it were as easy as computers, they would have aced it long ago.

[Plane]

I don't think that democracy is as difficult or as crushing of social mores as you do.



I the people get what they want , they will get a government that  suits them well no matter what that is.


I think that a claim that they cannot "get " it is racist even if you can compose metaphors that are supportve of your contentions.


If you and the G think that it is equally hard for Iriquis to learn democracy as it is for tigers to learn to swim then I have learned two things about you two.

1.You are racist.
2. You don't know that tigers are good swimmers .

[gipper]

Listen, you moron, one more asinine crack about racism and I'll have to metaphorically kick your fat ass. Oh, on a realistic note, give my best to the wife and kids.

[Plane]

Listen, you moron, one more asinine crack about racism and I'll have to metaphorically kick your fat ass. Oh, on a realistic note, give my best to the wife and kids.

Thank you , I accept your challenge .

But please do not consider this personal.

I consider that holding forth on the inferiority of a race is racist.

If a person wants to talk of a people as being incapable of doing a thing that many other Peoples have done , he is going to have to overcome my skepticism with some solid evidences.

I consider that Tigers and Sharks are very genetically diffrent and most of their differences are genetically founded . The differences in their capability's are inherently congenital.

People are not like that.

Although there are genetic differences between races they do not amount to speciation and do not amount to congenital difference in capability.

So to say that a people is incapable of handling democracy meets the definition of racism , to modify the accusation of inferiority with a claim that the inability is cultural does little to mitigate the offensive nature of being ethno- centric rather than race - centric. There is nothing about our culture that makes its members particularly more intelligent or able to understand democracy than anyother .

 Is there anything about democracy that is destructive to one culture more than it is to another , or more friendly to one culture than another? No
Of course not, if the people elect what they want , they will elect a government compatible with their culture and that government ,to perpetuate itself will cope itself to the people however it must.


Do not worry that I mean to insult you by calling you a raciest , I am not built up by tearing others down ,
but someone who is wiling to say that one people or culture is so diffrent than another
 as tigers are from sharks and therefore
one can understand what the other cannot
accuses himself.

 I am calling them as I see them and I look forward to your reply.

[Plane]

"Listen, you moron, one more asinine crack about racism and I'll have to metaphorically kick your fat ass. Oh, on a realistic note, give my best to the wife and kids."


Since a single additional crack about racism will have dire conequences I should ensure not to make a single such crack therefore I hereby make another.


You are a racist , and you are unaware
 that it is a bad idea
 to give an opponent a good idea of where your tender spots are
 just as you challenge him to spar.

[Plane]

<<Even the most virulent anti American Islamofacisist has learned to use computers.>>

That in itself should answer your question.  If the establishment of a democracy that satisfies all or almost all of the citizens by the manifest advantages which youy are claiming for it were as easy as computers, they would have aced it long ago.

At least we are in agreement that virulent anti American Islamofacisists are as a class unintelligent.


I d not blame it on their bloodline or their culture tho , I consider the condition to be self selecting.

[Michael Tee]

<<At least we are in agreement that virulent anti American Islamofacisists are as a class unintelligent.>>

Huh?  Virulent religious fanatics of any persuasion are unintelligent.  When did I single out anti-American Islamofascists as being any more unintelligent than Focus on the Family?

[Plane]

<<At least we are in agreement that virulent anti American Islamofacisists are as a class unintelligent.>>

Huh?  Virulent religious fanatics of any persuasion are unintelligent.  When did I single out anti-American Islamofascists as being any more unintelligent than Focus on the Family?

[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
Then we agree about virulent anti American Islamofacisists but disagree about Focus on the Family , which is a highly intelligent bunch to my estimation.


How do you feel about people who put fanatic faith in Socailism or Communism or Fascism or race supremacy?


I feel another partial agreement is possible.

[Michael Tee]

Well, communists are first and last analytical.  I don't know how a guy can call himself a good Communist and at the same time be a fanatic.  What good is he?  Communists have to be like Uncle Ho, or Fidel - - constantly examining and reappraising, weeding out what isn't working and even compromising with the class enemy when the time is right.  Can a fanatic do that?  I don't think so.

Interestingly enough, the Nazis WANT fanatics in their ranks.  There are numerous quotes from Josef Goebbels where he says they must "become fanatics" and others where he praises "fanatical devotion."  I believe he referred to himself at one point as Hitler's most fanatic follower.  "Fanatic" actually is a big part of the Nazi lexicon.  It appeared in a lot of their propaganda broadcasts, particularly towards the end of the war.

Nazis are the ultimate evil.  They're so bad that it's impossible to draw distinctions between them.  Fanatical Nazis, non-fanatical Nazis, what's the difference?  They all deserve a painful death and a shallow grave, the sooner the better.

[Plane]

Well, communists are first and last analytical.  I don't know how a guy can call himself a good Communist and at the same time be a fanatic.  What good is he?  Communists have to be like Uncle Ho, or Fidel - - constantly examining and reappraising, weeding out what isn't working and even compromising with the class enemy when the time is right.  Can a fanatic do that?  I don't think so.

Interestingly enough, the Nazis WANT fanatics in their ranks.  There are numerous quotes from Josef Goebbels where he says they must "become fanatics" and others where he praises "fanatical devotion."  I believe he referred to himself at one point as Hitler's most fanatic follower.  "Fanatic" actually is a big part of the Nazi lexicon.  It appeared in a lot of their propaganda broadcasts, particularly towards the end of the war.

Nazis are the ultimate evil.  They're so bad that it's impossible to draw distinctions between them.  Fanatical Nazis, non-fanatical Nazis, what's the difference?  They all deserve a painful death and a shallow grave, the sooner the better.

I knew it , we agree in part, about half.

I consider the inflexability of Communism to be one of its most pervasive weaknesses , that they allowed no non-communist teaching within their borders makes them first cousin to the most harsh theocracy.  Chinese Comunism sems to be evolveing way from such rigdity, but consquently it improves by evolveing away from Communism.


Fanatical Nazis deserve all the opprobrium they get in both your estimation and mine , but I see fewer diffrences in them from Fanatical Communists than do you , the diffrences that they have show up in the details I have little intrest in.

[gipper]

My metaphor stands proudly as first stated. For your meager abilities, however, it might be better to put it in the form of a political cartoon, though no doubt that too would go zipping by your literalist head.

[BT]

My metaphor stands proudly as first stated. For your meager abilities, however, it might be better to put it in the form of a political cartoon, though no doubt that too would go zipping by your literalist head.

Is this the way you present arguments in court?