Author Topic: Defeat Tehran not with bombs but with culture  (Read 43398 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Universe Prince

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • Of course liberty isn't safe; but it is good.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Defeat Tehran not with bombs but with culture
« on: May 06, 2008, 04:47:10 PM »
http://www.reason.com/news/show/126352.html

      But while Clinton's saber-rattling may have unnerved lesser Iranian officials such as Amb. Mehdi Danesh-Yazdi, who lodged a formal complaint to the United Nations, Ahmadinejad appeared unmoved by Clinton's morning-chat bravado. "Presidency of a woman in a country that boasts its gunmanship is unlikely," he quipped.

Meanwhile, Iran is terrified of Barbie, the tiny polyvinyl sex bomb who loves shopping, pizza, and brushing her hair, but has few satellite-guided missiles at her disposal. According to Iran's Prosecutor General, Ghorban Ali Dori Najfabadi, a loosely organized coalition, led by the world's most impeccably accessorized mercenary but also including additional combatants like Harry Potter and Spider-man, is doing "irreparable damage" to Iranian children. "The irregular importation of such toys, which unfortunately arrive through unofficial sources and smuggling, is destructive culturally and a social danger," Najafabadi cautioned (doubtless worried about the effect on sales of Iran's "official doll," Sara).
      
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.
--Hieronymus Karl Frederick Baron von Munchausen ("The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" [1988])--

Maccus Germanis

  • Guest
Re: Defeat Tehran not with bombs but with culture
« Reply #1 on: May 06, 2008, 05:38:44 PM »
The current regime does even fear its own culture.

http://www.amilimani.com/index/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=100&Itemid=2

I think we do have many opportunities to use culture to defeat such regimes, but is Barbie the best we've to offer? And can we allow enrichment of uranium by a regime that does likely need to bomb someone, so as to bolster their own support at home?

I welcome your declaration of cultural war with Ahmindamoodforjihad, but do not believe that we can  decalre the options of tactical bombings off limits.

Universe Prince

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • Of course liberty isn't safe; but it is good.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Defeat Tehran not with bombs but with culture
« Reply #2 on: May 06, 2008, 06:06:10 PM »

I think we do have many opportunities to use culture to defeat such regimes, but is Barbie the best we've to offer?


That depends on what you mean by best. Barbie is a popular doll in many cultures. I'm sure we could throw in some Bratz too. And we could add some Transformers and some Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. We could also try some Boris Vallejo & Julie Bell art for the older children. Baywatch and some Battlestar Galactica (the new one of course) might be helpful.


 And can we allow enrichment of uranium by a regime that does likely need to bomb someone, so as to bolster their own support at home?


I'm not so sure that it would.


I welcome your declaration of cultural war with Ahmindamoodforjihad, but do not believe that we can  decalre the options of tactical bombings off limits.


Okay. Not sure I agree, but I can understand that. Let's just say I prefer changing the cultural landscape to changing the actual landscape. The former tends to result in less death than the latter.
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.
--Hieronymus Karl Frederick Baron von Munchausen ("The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" [1988])--

Religious Dick

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1153
  • Drunk, drunk, drunk in the gardens and the graves
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Defeat Tehran not with bombs but with culture
« Reply #3 on: May 06, 2008, 06:39:00 PM »
Interesting that the Pink Hankies at Reason think subverting the political order of foreign countries through overwhelming their cultures is a viable tactic, but when it comes to their own country, they seem to believe our culture, and resultant political order, can take all comers without consequence. Curious, eh?
I speak of civil, social man under law, and no other.
-Sir Edmund Burke

_JS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3500
  • Salaires legers. Chars lourds.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Defeat Tehran not with bombs but with culture
« Reply #4 on: May 06, 2008, 07:29:18 PM »
Interesting that the Pink Hankies at Reason think subverting the political order of foreign countries through overwhelming their cultures is a viable tactic, but when it comes to their own country, they seem to believe our culture, and resultant political order, can take all comers without consequence. Curious, eh?

Not really. I imagine that they believe that every society should be able to withstand the free movement of labor and ideas. It isn't really all that difficult to grasp.
I smell something burning, hope it's just my brains.
They're only dropping peppermints and daisy-chains
   So stuff my nose with garlic
   Coat my eyes with butter
   Fill my ears with silver
   Stick my legs in plaster
   Tell me lies about Vietnam.

Universe Prince

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • Of course liberty isn't safe; but it is good.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Defeat Tehran not with bombs but with culture
« Reply #5 on: May 06, 2008, 08:47:41 PM »

Interesting that the Pink Hankies at Reason think subverting the political order of foreign countries through overwhelming their cultures is a viable tactic, but when it comes to their own country, they seem to believe our culture, and resultant political order, can take all comers without consequence. Curious, eh?


Not curious at all. A free (mostly) and flexible society (like ours) that gains from the input of others is going to have much different reaction to cultural influences than a prohibitive (mostly) and rigid society (like Iran's) that is brittle and fears external influences. That the folks at Reason know the difference and you do not, no, I guess that isn't really curious either.

Pink Hankies? Heh. That's almost clever.
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.
--Hieronymus Karl Frederick Baron von Munchausen ("The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" [1988])--

Religious Dick

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1153
  • Drunk, drunk, drunk in the gardens and the graves
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Defeat Tehran not with bombs but with culture
« Reply #6 on: May 06, 2008, 11:27:14 PM »

Interesting that the Pink Hankies at Reason think subverting the political order of foreign countries through overwhelming their cultures is a viable tactic, but when it comes to their own country, they seem to believe our culture, and resultant political order, can take all comers without consequence. Curious, eh?


Not curious at all. A free (mostly) and flexible society (like ours) that gains from the input of others is going to have much different reaction to cultural influences than a prohibitive (mostly) and rigid society (like Iran's) that is brittle and fears external influences.


Ah! I see... Like France!





 That the folks at Reason know the difference and you do not, no, I guess that isn't really curious either.

Pink Hankies? Heh. That's almost clever.[/color]

I think what you mean is the yanked-out-of-the-ass difference that shows no sign of actually manifesting itself in actual fact...

Funny thing - I post news items, you post opinion pieces from an allegedly libertarian rag. And for some reason, the opinion pieces don't seem to be lining up too well with what actually occurs when those great ideas they promote are actually put into effect....
I speak of civil, social man under law, and no other.
-Sir Edmund Burke

Universe Prince

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • Of course liberty isn't safe; but it is good.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Defeat Tehran not with bombs but with culture
« Reply #7 on: May 07, 2008, 12:11:59 AM »

Ah! I see... Like France!


Like France? France has a host of issues that step from attempts to maintain a society that is in many respects rigid. Also, while I know a lot of people have wanted to blame the Muslims for the riots, as I have looked into the matter, there are also a lot of non-Muslim youth apparently involved. So no, my too clever friend, not like France.


I think what you mean is the yanked-out-of-the-ass difference that shows no sign of actually manifesting itself in actual fact...


On the contrary, I think a general comparison of U.S. society and Iran society will show exactly what I was talking about. Though things in Iran are changing. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-02-28-iran-pink_x.htm)


Funny thing - I post news items, you post opinion pieces from an allegedly libertarian rag. And for some reason, the opinion pieces don't seem to be lining up too well with what actually occurs when those great ideas they promote are actually put into effect....


Allegedly libertarian? And I suppose you know what a "true" libertarian is? What a silly question, of course you do. Fundamentalism is so freeing. Anyway, please feel free to go beyond your vague accusation that ideas promoted by Reason don't work out when put into practice. You can provide an example, I'm sure, so please, don't worry about hurting my feelings. Provide the example. I'm sure it will be nothing short of 100% accurate and true with no coloring of bias from you at all.
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.
--Hieronymus Karl Frederick Baron von Munchausen ("The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" [1988])--

Religious Dick

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1153
  • Drunk, drunk, drunk in the gardens and the graves
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Defeat Tehran not with bombs but with culture
« Reply #8 on: May 07, 2008, 12:22:02 AM »

Ah! I see... Like France!


Like France? France has a host of issues that step from attempts to maintain a society that is in many respects rigid.

So the riots are Society's fault? So much for individual responsibility! That's a rather quaint perspective from a libertarian!

Also, while I know a lot of people have wanted to blame the Muslims for the riots, as I have looked into the matter, there are also a lot of non-Muslim youth apparently involved. So no, my too clever friend, not like France.[/color]

You wouldn't care to post some support for that assertion, would you?

I speak of civil, social man under law, and no other.
-Sir Edmund Burke

Universe Prince

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • Of course liberty isn't safe; but it is good.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Defeat Tehran not with bombs but with culture
« Reply #9 on: May 07, 2008, 12:59:37 AM »

So the riots are Society's fault? So much for individual responsibility! That's a rather quaint perspective from a libertarian!


That is not what I said. You have a lot of skill in attacking strawmen. I'm guessing you must practice a lot.


You wouldn't care to post some support for that assertion, would you?


Yes, as a matter of fact, I would.

      The violence has drawn comparisons with riots that raged through suburbs nationwide in 2005, and has shown that anger still smolders in poor housing projects where many Arabs, blacks and other minorities live largely isolated from the rest of society.

[...]

There have long been tensions between France's largely white police force and ethnic minorities in poor neighborhoods. Despite decades of problems and heavy state investments to improve housing and create jobs, the depressed projects that ring Paris are a world apart from the tourist attractions of the French capital. Police speak of no-go zones where they and firefighters fear to patrol.
      
-http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313024,00.html

      In this week's events, young men, often hooded, roamed the suburbs at night and firebombed cars, dumpsters and a library. They did not shout Muslim demands, spray Muslim graffiti or wear the trademark beards and baggy pants of a salafi. They did not gather at mosques or shout "Allah-o-akbar!" They avoided journalists, presumably seeing them as part of "the system" that they oppose, and made no demands related to Islam. When those detained were questioned by police, they were not asked about their religion or ethnic identity -- that's not allowed in France.

So my first question is -- how are we supposed to write as fact that they are Muslims? Where are the facts to justify phrases like "Muslim riots" or "French intifada?"

Some might say that we know these riots happen in "Muslim neighbourhoods." But when journalists go visit them, they find neighbourhoods that are multiracial, multicultural, multilingual and multifaith. Judging by the faces seen on the streets, there are Arabs (mostly from North Africa), blacks from Africa and the Caribbean, people from the Indian Subcontinent (often Sri Lankans) and whites -- yes, poor French whites. There are Muslims who pray in mosques and Christians who attend various churches, including a growing number of African evangelicals. Here and there in Paris or its suburbs, you even find poor Jews who moved to France from North Africa -- some even still speak Arabic and live peacefully with their Muslim neighbours. And don't forget there are a lot of agnostics and atheists out there -- this is France, after all, where the average rate of regular attendance in churches, synagogues and mosques is about 10 percent.
      
-http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2007/11/29/why-we-dont-call-them-muslim-riots-in-paris-suburbs/
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.
--Hieronymus Karl Frederick Baron von Munchausen ("The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" [1988])--

Religious Dick

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1153
  • Drunk, drunk, drunk in the gardens and the graves
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Defeat Tehran not with bombs but with culture
« Reply #10 on: May 07, 2008, 04:50:41 AM »

So the riots are Society's fault? So much for individual responsibility! That's a rather quaint perspective from a libertarian!


That is not what I said. You have a lot of skill in attacking strawmen. I'm guessing you must practice a lot.


You wouldn't care to post some support for that assertion, would you?


Yes, as a matter of fact, I would.

      The violence has drawn comparisons with riots that raged through suburbs nationwide in 2005, and has shown that anger still smolders in poor housing projects where many Arabs, blacks and other minorities live largely isolated from the rest of society.

[...]

There have long been tensions between France's largely white police force and ethnic minorities in poor neighborhoods. Despite decades of problems and heavy state investments to improve housing and create jobs, the depressed projects that ring Paris are a world apart from the tourist attractions of the French capital. Police speak of no-go zones where they and firefighters fear to patrol.
      
-http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313024,00.html

      In this week's events, young men, often hooded, roamed the suburbs at night and firebombed cars, dumpsters and a library. They did not shout Muslim demands, spray Muslim graffiti or wear the trademark beards and baggy pants of a salafi. They did not gather at mosques or shout "Allah-o-akbar!" They avoided journalists, presumably seeing them as part of "the system" that they oppose, and made no demands related to Islam. When those detained were questioned by police, they were not asked about their religion or ethnic identity -- that's not allowed in France.

So my first question is -- how are we supposed to write as fact that they are Muslims? Where are the facts to justify phrases like "Muslim riots" or "French intifada?"

Some might say that we know these riots happen in "Muslim neighbourhoods." But when journalists go visit them, they find neighbourhoods that are multiracial, multicultural, multilingual and multifaith. Judging by the faces seen on the streets, there are Arabs (mostly from North Africa), blacks from Africa and the Caribbean, people from the Indian Subcontinent (often Sri Lankans) and whites -- yes, poor French whites. There are Muslims who pray in mosques and Christians who attend various churches, including a growing number of African evangelicals. Here and there in Paris or its suburbs, you even find poor Jews who moved to France from North Africa -- some even still speak Arabic and live peacefully with their Muslim neighbours. And don't forget there are a lot of agnostics and atheists out there -- this is France, after all, where the average rate of regular attendance in churches, synagogues and mosques is about 10 percent.
      
-http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2007/11/29/why-we-dont-call-them-muslim-riots-in-paris-suburbs/

In other words, they aren't denying it, they just point out that, well, it's not just Muslims that live in those neighborhoods, and then entirely avoid the question of who was doing the rioting, leaving the reader to draw a conclusion they can plausibly deny having outright stated if challenged on it. Cute.

By the way, re your other question:

Allegedly libertarian? And I suppose you know what a "true" libertarian is? What a silly question, of course you do. Fundamentalism is so freeing. Anyway, please feel free to go beyond your vague accusation that ideas promoted by Reason don't work out when put into practice. You can provide an example, I'm sure, so please, don't worry about hurting my feelings. Provide the example. I'm sure it will be nothing short of 100% accurate and true with no coloring of bias from you at all.

Here's an example of the kind of brilliant thinking that permeates Reason's brand of "libertarianism" I give you the Divine Miss Howley:

Quote
Last week the London Times ran a less-than-groundbreaking "Europe needs more babies" opinion piece, this one by avowed "eco-puritan" Melanie McDonagh. Understandably, McDonagh is worried about her pension and health care in the absence of gurgling future taxpayers. But the folks at The Economist blog will not be guilted into breeding:

    Longman and McDonagh seem to envision breeding and childrearing as a sort of public good likely to be underprovided if individuals are left to their own selish devices. Those of us who decline to yield future workers are free riding off all that "human capital" produced by altuistic pram-pushers. But, as always, there is too little altruism to go around. So we should go for the next best thing: tax incentives.

    There is something inherently repellant about a social vision in which wombs and their fruits are conceived primarily in terms of future labor productivity and tax receipts. But you don't have to be repelled to see that the "kids as public goods" picture doesn't add up.

    First, it should be obvious that nations don't have to have pension systems highly sensitive to worker-to-retiree ratios. A shift to a system of mandatory personal retirement accounts immediately solves that problem. And then there are substitutes to native-born children. People born in other countries can also work and pay taxes. Indeed, if yours is a rich country, billions of less-rich people would like to come there. So let more of them come. And then there is technological progress, which allows machines to do some formerly human jobs, and increases the productivity of remaining human labour.

    There is no reason a nation with a shrinking population cannot maintain steady rates of GDP per capita growth if mechanization and labour productivity gains keep up a good pace. Indeed, George Mason economist Robin Hanson argues that soon enough robots will be doing almost all the jobs [pdf] anyway. So it is easy enough to imagine a country that maintains a high standard of living as the population eventually shrinks to ... nothing. People differ rather vehemently on this issue, but I see nothing wrong with a population dwindling away entirely, as long as living conditions remain high.

There is much more, all of it worth reading. But ultimately you have to wonder whether lengthy refutations of pro-fertility economic (as opposed to cultural) claims are just a waste of pixels. Worries about population decline, like worries over overpopulation that preceded them and worries about immigration that coincide with them, are tied to a particular vision of a particular society--and it's not a vision that is likely to be argued away by positing the sustainability of social security accounts.

Singapore's natalist agenda is in place largely to help maintain the Chinese majority; John Gibson warns American non-hispanics that it's time to "do your duty" and "make more babies." McDonagh is worried about population decline, yet she somehow sees fit to promote immigration restrictions as a coping mechanism. All of which is why Mark Steyn's Oh-shit-the-Muslims-are-breeding polemic America Alone is a less intellectual book than Philip Longman's economically inclined The Empty Cradle, and probably a more important one.
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/121644.html

That's so good, I'll repeat part of it:

Quote
So it is easy enough to imagine a country that maintains a high standard of living as the population eventually shrinks to ... nothing. People differ rather vehemently on this issue, but I see nothing wrong with a population dwindling away entirely, as long as living conditions remain high. All individual lives come to an end, but they are not therefore worthless. Societies don't last forever either, and neither do nation-states. A society that fades away in high style might count as a spectacular human triumph, not a failure. Where's the underprovided public good in steady-growth population decline?

In a nutshell, that's the kind of world-view that permeates the brilliant thinking at Reason - they give not a flying fuck about the literally thousands of generations that lived and died to give them the world they have, nor the subsequent generations who will have to either clean up their mess or just live with the consequences -   if there even are any subsequent generations, something else they apparently give not a flying fuck about, either. Hell, open the borders, and give them their cheap nannies and housekeepers and gardeners and farm-workers, so they won't have to be bothered with taking care of their own children, or houses, or gardens. Who cares what kind of problems this causes for subsequent generations? It's not like this country actually has any history of ethnic strife that still hasn't been resolved to this day, is it? As long as it enables getting their rocks off today, who cares what problems it leaves someone else? Even extinction is a small price to pay.

I give you Ron Bailey:

Quote
Do We Owe Future Generations Anything?

Ronald Bailey | March 25, 2008, 10:50am
Over at the environmenatist webzine Grist ("gloom and doom with a sense of humor"*) Bill Becker argues:

    Intergenerational ethics argue against us leaving massive, intractable problems for future generations, forcing them to deal in perpetuity with nuclear wastes, carbon sequestration sites and geo-engineering systems ? all subject to human error and to failures that would be deadly.

Really? Perhaps intergenerational ethics tells us that poor people (us) should not sacrfice their livelihoods, health and welfare for rich people (future generations). Reducing current incomes will certainly be deadly for some people now alive.

Should people making an average of $7000 per year be forced to lower their incomes in order to boost the incomes of future generations that some scenarios project will have incomes in 2100 over $107,000 per capita in developed countries and over $66,000 in developing countries? Also keep in mind that not only will future generations be much richer, they will have access to better technologies with which to address any problems caused by man-made climate change, nuclear waste and geo-engineering projects.

As bioethicists are always fond of saying, I'm just asking questions here. 
*Humor? Not so much.

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/125680.html

You notice a reoccurring theme here - let's have a good time today, and let somebody else clean up the mess ("Don't worry Mr. Reardon - you'll think of something!") - if there even is a somebody else...

At least it's pretty clear why this bunch of libertarians doesn't seem so keen on Ayn Rand - there's a hell of a lot more Wesley Mouch than John Galt about them!

This isn't even libertarianism, it's just nihilism, and I gave up on nihilism about the time Sid Vicious died. If that's the modern state of libertarianism, you can have it. It certainly has nothing to say to me.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2008, 05:00:21 AM by Religious Dick »
I speak of civil, social man under law, and no other.
-Sir Edmund Burke

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Defeat Tehran not with bombs but with culture
« Reply #11 on: May 07, 2008, 06:01:50 AM »
Do the rioters get interviewed at all?

Do they think of themselves as French?

Universe Prince

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • Of course liberty isn't safe; but it is good.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Defeat Tehran not with bombs but with culture
« Reply #12 on: May 07, 2008, 06:39:15 AM »

In other words, they aren't denying it, they just point out that, well, it's not just Muslims that live in those neighborhoods, and then entirely avoid the question of who was doing the rioting, leaving the reader to draw a conclusion they can plausibly deny having outright stated if challenged on it. Cute.


No, cute is not the word I would choose to describe your silly distortion. The point you missed is that whoever is involved in the riots, if Muslims are among them, Muslims are not the only ones, so referring to the riots as Muslim riots is in fact incorrect. The riots are more accurately called youth riots as the majority of the rioters seem to be young people and there does not seem to be a particularly religious aspect to the riots. In other words, no, my too clever friend, not like France.


Here's an example of the kind of brilliant thinking that permeates Reason's brand of "libertarianism" I give you the Divine Miss Howley:


Four of those paragraphs are not Howley's. And the part you repeated, also not Howley's. Granted, she seems to agree, but there is no reason to attribute to her things she did not say.


In a nutshell, that's the kind of world-view that permeates the brilliant thinking at Reason - they give not a flying fuck about the literally thousands of generations that lived and died to give them the world they have, nor the subsequent generations who will have to either clean up their mess or just live with the consequences -   if there even are any subsequent generations, something else they apparently give not a flying fuck about, either. Hell, open the borders, and give them their cheap nannies and housekeepers and gardeners and farm-workers, so they won't have to be bothered with taking care of their own children, or houses, or gardens. Who cares what kind of problems this causes for subsequent generations? It's not like this country actually has any history of ethnic strife that still hasn't been resolved to this day, is it? As long as it enables getting their rocks off today, who cares what problems it leaves someone else? Even extinction is a small price to pay.


That is funny. Ha ha funny. Give me a moment to stop laughing....

Okay, now, let's get serious. They don't care about the "thousands of generations that lived and died to give them the world they have"? This from the guy who wants to stop the sort of immigration that brought us many generations that lived and died to give us the world that we have. It's like you just ramble off something you've read or heard without considering how it relates to what you're complaining about.

Then there is the suggestion that they don't care about "the subsequent generations who will have to either clean up their mess or just live with the consequences". I'll just quote back to you something Howley actually did say: "McDonagh is worried about population decline, yet she somehow sees fit to promote immigration restrictions as a coping mechanism." See, again I think you have this backwards. You're the one who seems to not understand the consequences your ideas will have on future generations, and you seem not to care so long as the culture and language remain pure, which they never were in the first place.

Yes, I know, somehow maintaining this false purity is going to save the future. You say, "open the borders, and give them their cheap nannies and housekeepers and gardeners and farm-workers, so they won't have to be bothered with taking care of their own children, or houses, or gardens." I'm not sure if this is some sort of cultural luddism or some sort of cultural socialism. Don't hire people to be your housekeeper or work on your lawn because... it is a danger to our culture? it ruins the future for the children? it represents change? I'll try to remember that hiring someone to mow my lawn is bad the next time some local young person offers to mow my lawn for money. I'll see if I can explain to him how his desire to exchange his labor for my money is a danger to the culture in which we live and how disrespectful it is of the generations who came before and will come after. I'm sure he'll understand. And by golly, the next time any parents I know talk about hiring a babysitter I will certainly chastise them for endangering future generations by not wanting to stay home and take care of their own children. No, not really, but my sarcasm makes this more fun for me.



I give you Ron Bailey:

Quote
Do We Owe Future Generations Anything?

[...]

Really? Perhaps intergenerational ethics tells us that poor people (us) should not sacrfice their livelihoods, health and welfare for rich people (future generations). Reducing current incomes will certainly be deadly for some people now alive.

[...]

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/125680.html

You notice a reoccurring theme here - let's have a good time today, and let somebody else clean up the mess ("Don't worry Mr. Reardon - you'll think of something!") - if there even is a somebody else...


Are you even paying attention to what you're quoting? Bailey argues that we should consider the poor of today, consider not reducing their income and opportunities for economic advancement, and you're bitching that this is somehow unfair to future generations? Yes, keeping poor people poor is so (not at all) helpful to future generations. Pooh yi!


At least it's pretty clear why this bunch of libertarians doesn't seem so keen on Ayn Rand - there's a hell of a lot more Wesley Mouch than John Galt about them!


Clearly, you're not paying attention. Reason regularly advocates for a free market. And I should note that the person in this discussion who is not advocating for a free market is you.


This isn't even libertarianism, it's just nihilism, and I gave up on nihilism about the time Sid Vicious died. If that's the modern state of libertarianism, you can have it. It certainly has nothing to say to me.


How would you know if it does or does not have something to say to you? You're not even paying attention.

You said earlier, "You notice a reoccurring theme here", and indeed I do see a reoccurring theme in your posts. Anyone who does not agree with you is considered by you as someone who does not care. I disagree with you about immigration, therefore you insist I must not care about our culture and our nation. The Reason folks disagree with you about, well, apparently everything, so you label their positions as nihilism. You seem so convinced that your own positions represent true and genuine care and concern for others that you have equated any contrary opinions with apathy. This is the main and reoccurring fallacy of your posts, at least in my discussions with you.
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.
--Hieronymus Karl Frederick Baron von Munchausen ("The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" [1988])--

Religious Dick

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1153
  • Drunk, drunk, drunk in the gardens and the graves
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Defeat Tehran not with bombs but with culture
« Reply #13 on: May 07, 2008, 07:35:05 AM »

In other words, they aren't denying it, they just point out that, well, it's not just Muslims that live in those neighborhoods, and then entirely avoid the question of who was doing the rioting, leaving the reader to draw a conclusion they can plausibly deny having outright stated if challenged on it. Cute.


No, cute is not the word I would choose to describe your silly distortion. The point you missed is that whoever is involved in the riots, if Muslims are among them, Muslims are not the only ones, so referring to the riots as Muslim riots is in fact incorrect. The riots are more accurately called youth riots as the majority of the rioters seem to be young people and there does not seem to be a particularly religious aspect to the riots. In other words, no, my too clever friend, not like France.


I'll get to the rest of your post later, but one thing I'd like to address right now - there are any number of photographs of these riots, not to mention a plethora of videos on youtube. Funnily enough, not a single one backs up your assertion!

If you can produce a visual record that backs up your assertion, I'd sure as hell like to see it. Because of all the photographs, and all the footage available on the net, I've yet to find a single one that does!
I speak of civil, social man under law, and no other.
-Sir Edmund Burke

Universe Prince

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • Of course liberty isn't safe; but it is good.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Defeat Tehran not with bombs but with culture
« Reply #14 on: May 07, 2008, 03:16:26 PM »

I'll get to the rest of your post later, but one thing I'd like to address right now - there are any number of photographs of these riots, not to mention a plethora of videos on youtube. Funnily enough, not a single one backs up your assertion!

If you can produce a visual record that backs up your assertion, I'd sure as hell like to see it. Because of all the photographs, and all the footage available on the net, I've yet to find a single one that does!


Then I suggest you, as usual, are not paying attention.
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.
--Hieronymus Karl Frederick Baron von Munchausen ("The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" [1988])--