fustakrakich's Journal: I swear, I didn't know who I was talking to..

All them A-rabs look alike to me

Eh, What else is new..

Meanwhile, Obama continues to stack the deck

O-bla-di, o-bla-da, life goes on, brah!

Heh

[smittyoneeach]

Anybody who thinks there is an easy answer to what to do in the ME hasn't looked at the problem in detail.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

Apparently that's why making excuses is the most common action. Just tell everybody 'it's complicated' and keep on supporting the war business. Pure cop out, man.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

But think of it as a cop-in, too.
--All of the regional regimes H8 the Great Satan in public, but privately find Team America handy against foes.
--The trade routes matter. You can let 'friendly' economies die on the vine (the idea has some merit) but letting sea lanes of communication die will smack of folly over time.
--Then there is the frogskins. Altruism as far as it goes, but nobody worth heeding is denying that there is, was, and will be, money made on war.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

It is still subhuman. In your attempt to rationalize you pile on so many abstractions that it completely obscures the underlying animalism that drives this.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Rationalize? No, I'm not trying to apologize and/or excuse anything.
Nor do I understand what you mean by subhuman/animalism. I thought you were one of my atheist interlocutors. From the purely materialistic standpoint, what's a little more 'inhumanity', if there is no ultimate, eternal judge of all this?

Re:

[fustakrakich]

...what's a little more 'inhumanity'...?

We are , rather we can be. No absolutes are needed. We can make them up, as we already do now.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

We can make them up, as we already do now.

Aye, and watch them get rationalized to permit inhumanity. Every. Single. Miserable. Time.
But keep touching yourself and try to argue otherwise. It's kinda funny.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

All our inhumanity is due to people who believe in (and make up) absolutes, religious or political, and try to impose them on the infidels. And that's a fact jack... They are the ones doing the rationalizing. The relativists have the good sense to live and let live. They are the ones who can adapt to changing environments and new data. All you people do is cling to the old and ultimately incorrect. This is due to your culture of powerful patriarchal authoritarianism. Tradition is not always a good thing. Au

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

All our inhumanity is due to people who believe in (and make up) absolutes, religious or political, and try to impose them on the infidels.

Quite the opposite.

The relativists have the good sense to live and let live.

They give themselves healthy doses of rectal sunshine. But, denying any objective judgement, how can a relativist possibly claim 'good sense'? Ever? How?

All you people do is cling to the old and ultimately incorrect. This is due to your culture of powerful patriarchal authoritarianism.

You offer some Politically Correct alternative, while trying to argue raw hooey such as

From the standpoint of governance, what is at stake is our ability to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption. [nytimes.com]

Oh what a foul, Satanic lie that is!

And your eloquent, philosophical absolutes are the chief rationalizations used to make all your poo flinging appear "human". As long as you keep it up, hairless monkeys are all you'll ever be.

And the alternative you offer is what, exactly, you used car salesman? Your Utopia is wh

Re:

[fustakrakich]

Quite the opposite.

History shows you're just plain wrong. But since it is direct conflict with your conditioning, you will never see it Considering that those who write the law refuse to follow it, the law is absurd. The "rule of law" one of the most naive things you can dream up.

Whether I come up with an alternative or not does not changes the facts I have spelled out. Yours are the views of the typical reactionary, and you will remain that way because nobody can offer up "guarantees" that will satisfy you

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

History shows you're just plain wrong.

What history, then? Some tainted pile of hooey from Zinn? Hobsbawm?

But since it is direct conflict with your conditioning, you will never see it

You set up a fine tautology, and expect it to be taken for argument?

Considering that those who write the law refuse to follow it, the law is absurd. The "rule of law" one of the most naive things you can dream up.

And just what shiny replacement are you pulling from your nethers, then? And I was quoting Al Gore there, so argue with your own tool.

Yours are the views of the typical reactionary, and you will remain that way because nobody can offer up "guarantees" that will satisfy you.

You've got nothing, your penury is revealed. If you had some final answer, you'd show it. But it seems all you have is accusations and tautologies.

And I never purported to have any guarantees, unlike you with your holy book's promise of eternal glory.

My faith's long since crucified, under-bussed, and discounted. We were discussing your pride in

Re:

[fustakrakich]

Again, you dismiss out of hand anything that conflicts with your upbringing. This is going nowhere. If you want to remain in your cage, that's fine, but don't try to put me in it.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

What do you mean? I said:

My faith's long since crucified, under-bussed, and discounted. We were discussing your pride in your emasculation.

I agreed that Christianity stands discredited in worldly eyes.
That you insist on making it about me sounds like a confession of fecklessness.