Three Lefts Make a Right, and Three Rights Make a Left

Tools    





You ready? You look ready.
@Yoda: Once again, no. I said we bombed the everliving **** out of them (read civilian’s memoirs: they **** themselves 24/7...hence everliving ****). You said we specifically didn’t. I gave you numbers. (And here is where the error is revealed) You gave me words about how those numbers are ok since it was a small portion of the overall numbers. (Thus, we bombed civilians, and I was right) And then 2 pages of how in the hell is that not self-evident?

Frankly I think my having to explain this is odd. It’s wayyy rude, too. I don’t like this ^ me, so maybe I prefer glib. Excuse me for trying to unwind on the Internet. I have enough stress at work and in real life. Pardon me for trying to respond to a one off post, which wasn’t even yours, with the same one off fashion.
__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza



This is getting downright bizarre. You seem to agree the whole thing is about proportionality, but in the very same post simultaneously state that agreeing we bombed some civilians proves you right. Here it is in a nutshell, all quotes from our last posts, respectively:

Me:
your claim is that I actually somehow thought no civilians were killed by our bombs in WW2?
You:
Once again, no
You later, same post:
(Thus, we bombed civilians, and I was right)
??????

Excuse me for trying to unwind on the Internet. I have enough stress at work and in real life. Pardon me for trying to respond to a one off post, which wasn’t even yours, with the same one off fashion.
Starting threads like this and tossing out far-reaching claims about war and politics doesn't really seem like an "unwinding" activity.

Anyway, I've said over and over to you and a thousand other people that I don't really mind if someone doesn't wanna argue this stuff. It's unpleasant and as you say, sometimes people just wanna wind. But I do mind if they don't want to argue about it while still replying to tell other people how wrong they are over and over.



Had to do some catching up here and it seems much of the discussion has gone **** up. That is shame as I was hoping for some good debate from all involved. There has been some great discussion and some interesting points brought up, but the optics are pointing towards a one sided effort on the bombing topic. Not really wanting to get involved in the what was said department, but I do have something to say about "bombing" and the perspective that some have on America and us bombing civilians because it is "what we do".

This is a very flippant and cynical statement imho. It may or may not have been meant as such, but it is difficult for me to define it any other way. It takes away all the emotions and sacrifices and so many more things from all sides, including the victims. I have personally witnessed the decision making that goes into these types of things albeit on a smaller scale than WWII. It was above my pay grade to be a part of these things, but I did keep minutes and records and I saw firsthand the difficult time our country's on the ground leaders had when making these decisions. To say we just do it because it is what we do is quite an insult, but I am not angry, it is your right to say and believe what you wish - but it does disturb me a bit. I would be happy to give an example of why:

Lets say I bring up abortion. Not opening that topic here, but using it as an example because it is another topic that tends to split the country. Let say that I flippantly argue for pro life by saying "Killing babies", its what liberals do. First of all I would never say that, but as an example it is pretty close to what you are saying. it does not define anything but a hatred for abortion and does not take into account why a woman may have one or have a right to one. I do understand bombing and abortions are different in many ways, but the thought process is similar when it comes to debating the topic.

It is a close-minded stance to take, which again is a person's right to have, but it is indicative of how thick the barriers are that define all of us and our thoughts and beliefs. Facts do not seem to even matter anymore because if one is not on the "A" side of things then they are automatically wrong, there is no room for individualism.

This goes for so many topics in the world today. So many terms have become so watered down it boggles my mind.

Still love talking about this stuff though and will continue to do so, these are just my thoughts that I humbly share for whatever they are worth.
__________________
“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton



First: you think Normandy was like "the last day"? Seriously?
i don't study history, it doesn't interest me, at least wars of interest
what interest? ask the american companies who did business with hitler,
the IBM, Coca-Cola, you know the typical american ones, not to mention the financiers,
but they put the ww2 all in that battle like that's was all that mattered,
who're they? the owners of the american propaganda, spread across movies,
every single year another movie about american heroes in that war,
the russians were the nation with more causalities,
and they don't make tons of movies about it,
except the best of all come and see

Second: note you didn't respond to either point I made (about the fact that it wasn't our fight, and the distinction between population and actual contribution to the war effort itself).
i didn't respond to the "it wasn't our fight" because it's humorous, actually hilarious to me,
tell me one war that isn't an american war? with 250 years of history you had 5 or 6 of peace

This is just straight-up false, but I'm still waiting for you to acknowledge the misrepresentations about gun violence
i could make a google search and get some graph saying the gun violence is going up and not down,
but the trued is that i don't give a damn, i simple disagree with guns, they're a mechanism,
a mechanism american's used to implement the necessary violence to bully everyone around,
if you have a population that doesn't know what a gun is, how can you make them join there wars?

so I'm not sure how much I should bother expounding here.
you shouldn't, because, i don't really care about arguments, at least political ones,
they're not interesting anymore, maybe two years ago i'd be here thinking about every angle,
doesn't worth it, i think i reached a understanding, that i end up pitying them,
i don't believe in living a life focused on glory, power, control and futile pleasures

Between those claims and these, it feels quite clear to me that you've formed a hasty opinion of America, again, based on whatever stray news stories happen to reach you.
i have a hasty opinion of american, the same way i have a hasty opinion about my own history,
i don't agree with how we "discovered" brazil in the 1500, and yes i can criticize there actions,
people in my country have an idea that only spain did damnable things, we did plenty of them

Even if this were true (and again, it demonstrably isn't), the idea that this is as bad as being ruled by Nazis is pretty out there. I hope you don't sincerely believe that, but if you do, tell me now so I know not to waste any more time on this conversation.
it's like it's said in the movie stroszek, at least during that time you saw it coming, was open,
nowadays you don't even know whose your real boss, is all made polite with an worse outcome



i don't study history, it doesn't interest me, at least wars of interest
That's fine, but if someone doesn't study history and isn't interested in war, they probably shouldn't make claims about wars, no?

Anyway, the idea that the American war effort is like swooping in on "the last day" is absurd to anyone who's studied it even a little bit.

i didn't respond to the "it wasn't our fight" because it's humorous, actually hilarious to me
Why? It's true. We crossed an ocean to help fight a threat that was much more threatening to Europe than us for the foreseeable future. I think it was in the interest of all freedom-loving people in the long-run, but there was less direct threat to America than the other nations involved, which is one of the reasons our involvement was so significant. Almost everybody fights the enemy at their door, because they have no choice.

tell me one war that isn't an american war? with 250 years of history you had 5 or 6 of peace
Yeah, this isn't even close to true. It's also unrelated to the quote above. At this point basically everything you're saying is false or exaggerated to the point of incoherence.

i could make a google search and get some graph saying the gun violence is going up and not down,
No you couldn't. Not over any reasonable time scale, with an actual cited data set.

And really, if I can link you to hard data about gun homicides going down and you'll just wave it off and say "I could make a chart showing the opposite if I wanted," then it proves you're not really interested in facts and aren't basing your beliefs in them. Which is already pretty evident, I'm afraid. You're basically just saying "fake news!"

if you have a population that doesn't know what a gun is, how can you make them join there wars?
We have an all-volunteer army, and there are other countries without major gun violence problems who actually make military training mandatory, so this doesn't make sense in either direction.

you shouldn't, because, i don't really care about arguments, at least political ones,
they're not interesting anymore, maybe two years ago i'd be here thinking about every angle,
doesn't worth it, i think i reached a understanding, that i end up pitying them,
i don't believe in living a life focused on glory, power, control and futile pleasures
Me neither! But I also don't believe in living an uninformed life where I just sort of arbitrarily decide what's true without learning about it first. Especially if I'm going to tell other people how to run their lives/countries.

Anyway, political arguments are as good as you want them to be, in the end. I'm sorry if you've had a lot of lame, pointless ones. I sure have. Still seems worthwhile to try to be thoughtful and informed, though. It's how I've met some of my best friends, even though I had to wade through a lot of lame arguments to find them.

i have a hasty opinion of american, the same way i have a hasty opinion about my own history
I guess I feel less singled out, in that sense, but I think ideally there'd be no hasty opinions about anyone/anything.

it's like it's said in the movie stroszek, at least during that time you saw it coming, was open,
nowadays you don't even know whose your real boss, is all made polite with an worse outcome
I think the idea that this is a "worse outcome" than the Nazis, or that not knowing "whose your real boss" (which isn't true, but I assume is going to morph into some hacky claim of oligarchy or something), is...pretty extreme. And I think you probably know that.

I'm afraid you just don't really have a good sense of what America is like at all. Which should not surprise you given that you don't live here, admit you don't care much about the facts, and admit you've formed hasty opinions. Just don't expect those hasty opinions to be uncritically accepted by people who know better.

The world is a lot more complicated than whatever you've constructed from stray media fragments.



Since you care about this stuff have a video



It’s like the forums version of a Snickers
I wonder why you'd post this at all. I mean, all these seemingly informed and thoughtful people are actually dumb and wrong because the issue's obvious, yeah?



You ready? You look ready.
@Yoda: I posted it because you obviously wanted a deep discussion about the finer points of morality in bombing civilians.

I just wanted you to leave me out of your word games. It's a win-win!



you can make your picture and base yourself in newspapers owned by the people i despise,
i can make my picture based on the peoples i find logic, noam chomsky for example,
but i could spend half an hour thinking about what to write and find the sources but i don't want to
it doesn't worth it because i don't give it value anymore, and honestly i don't want to start again
any perspective you might give me, where this social system is not ruled by psychopaths i don't agree
the stats your based are from media that depends majorly on ads, those ads are from big corporations,
our "elected" presidents depend heavily, not to say exclusively from funding and corporations fund,
is a viscous circle of accumulation of wealth, the owners of the corporations dictate the rules,
and they want everything for themselves and nothing for anyone else,
lockheed martin corp, boeing, raytheon want wars to sell there guns,
exxon, valero want more and more oil and they'll use there power to get it, look at venezuela
pfizer, johnson & johnson, monsanto, will keep making diseases to sell there cures,
it's business and this is applied to everything out there to be sold, i an't buying, sorry

i could go back and gather all the information about mass slaughters made by the united states
but i just don't think it worth anything, because i don't want to change your perspective,
and frankly, i don't change mine that easily, i don't change opinions based on information,
who made that information you call facts? who says i have to believe them?



@Yoda: I posted it because you obviously wanted a deep discussion about the finer points of morality in bombing civilians.
What I want is for people who start discussions on contentious topics to see them through. Or at least bow out gracefully if it reaches a point of effort or complexity they're not interested in, as opposed to just telling people they're wrong without saying why.

But sure, it's a nice link apart from all that. Thanks. Of course, I have to note that its existence pretty clearly undermines the idea that the answer here is obvious or self-evident.

I just wanted you to leave me out of your word games. It's a win-win!
The only word games are me quoting the words that were said, which seems pretty relevant, but okay.



you can make your picture and base yourself in newspapers owned by the people i despise
Huh? I don't follow. Are you saying you despise the Washington Post? Tell me honestly: do you know anything about it, other than that it's an American newspaper?

but i could spend half an hour thinking about what to write and find the sources but i don't want to
it doesn't worth it because i don't give it value anymore, and honestly i don't want to start again
It doesn't take anywhere near that long to verify basic facts. But sure, if you don't want to have the argument, that's fine. But it's not exactly fair to make the argument, repeatedly, and not have it. You said something that isn't true, so I'm pointing it out.

the stats your based are from media that depends majorly on ads, those ads are from big corporations,
Er, not really. Typically these articles are citing publicly available data. They even source it on their charts. You'll see that if you click on the link and investigate the issue for yourself, rather than dismissing it out of hand because it doesn't fit the worldview you constructed without those facts.

our "elected" presidents depend heavily, not to say exclusively from funding and corporations fund
Would it surprise you to learn that Trump hates the Washington Post and has criticized them constantly for attacking him? I imagine that's inconvenient to the theory you're crafting here, but it's true.

i don't change opinions based on information,
who made that information you call facts? who says i have to believe them?
I hope you realize how much like Trump this sounds.

But okay, I'll bite: what information is your opinion based in, and who says you have to believe that? Be specific, please. Let's be clear about which sources you're trusting. Because it sounds to me like you're dismissing official government statistics (which come from a variety of sources and would be very difficult to manipulate at this scale) in favor of...what? A hazy sense of the number of news reports or articles that have happened to reach you? Please describe the information you use to reach these conclusions, and why you think it's more trustworthy than those basic statistics.



A system of cells interlinked
i don't change opinions based on information
I think that just leaves emotion as the only thing you may change opinions on, yes? I am guessing you might be quite young if you consider this to be a worthwhile approach to building a long term worldview.

Reading through you recent posts in this thread, it's fairly clear you have no interest in actual discussion on this topic, which you even state directly when you say you used to be interested in it, but no longer are. I guess my question is: Why are you in this thread? To bask America, capitalism, and random Americans in the the discussion?

If so, I would ask that you kindly step out of the thread and get back to discussing things you do enjoy discussing on the board, like films and the like, as the only trajectory I see this current discussion taking ends in more unpleasant actions taken by all. I've seen this all before, usually in political threads. The thread usually ends up locked, people end up leaving the forums in a huff, or worse, getting banned; none of these things is very constructive.

If course, you are free to inject your opinions on any subject into the discussion, but if it isn't enjoyable or constructive, why bother?
__________________
“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” ― Thomas Sowell



You ready? You look ready.
The only word games are me quoting the words that were said, which seems pretty relevant, but okay.
Whilst conveniently ignoring the things that contradict you. That’s the definition of word game.



Whilst conveniently ignoring the things that contradict you. That’s the definition of word game.
And this is the definition of projection.

I give you specific quotes each time. Most of your replies ignore those (case in point: my post right before you posted the video) and give me generalized contradictions like this one. That's how you know who's playing games and who's not.



Lmao at the amount of ducking and clucking in this thread



Oof. It takes some serious mental gymnastics to post sarcastic GIFs and spend more time trying to find creative ways to say "I'm right" than to respond substantively, and yet still somehow allow yourself to believe the other person is being arrogant.

I guess on some level I have to be appreciate that you decided to immediately demonstrate the thing I'd just described, but still, really disappointing exchange overall. Not sure there's much more to say, though I imagine I'll get another glib, content-less last-word-itis insult anyway on my way out. It's all yours.



You ready? You look ready.
I just thought the whole thing was hysterical. You making a big deal out of nothing. Digging a deep hole for no reason. I prefer to chew the fat. I’m not all about that word salad.



i don't believe in arguments because people see them as a battle, like a philosopher once said:
i never start an argument with anyone that thinks differently, because nothing will be accomplish
you might think that person is a coward and have fixed ideas, or doesn't want to confront them,
it's exactly the opposite, he just doesn't give enough importance to his ideas to defend them
that happens when you see everything as an opinion, like the dude said:
that's just like, your opinion man
my ideas, i know how unimportant they are, and i'd love to dialogue with someone with this perspective

@Yoda i don't know what you believe in, i don't know where you get your information,
any source of information that is mainstream, in my opinion is rigged, for the reasons i stated,
corporations basically run everything, and when you base your contradictory opinion on there info,
basically are doing exactly what i'd expect, and that's why i don't really give it value

about american wars, i think it's clear that america made enormous atrocities around the globe,
but you can easily find that information, julian assange is a hero on the department
since 9/11 is now legible to bomb a group of people to kill a single target, my source? dirty wars
it might tell you nothing, but it was made by jeremy scahill, creator of an good news platform,
the intercept, might tell you nothing but is among democracy now! truly independent news,
you get your information from corporation newspapers, i get them from independent ones,

you said i think like donald trump, that anything that goes against my ideas are fake news,
well, for me fake news are a way america fond to put the bad apples in one basket,
now everyone believes that the ones that aren't on the bad basket are actually good,
i'm not saying russia is clean, they obviously conter attacked america global media propaganda,
when most of the sources of mass information are american you have to make people dough them,
that's basically what russia successfully did, and america obviously tried to take advantage

about trump criticizing media platforms on the states, that's just good acting in my opinion,
like some thug said, his a puppet, who runs america are the "man's in dark suits",
the corporation owned media don't show information that damages there owners,
and there owners are not presidents, are like i said, corporations, brands
i show an aggression against america because some/most of the things i don't like born there,
i criticize some/most of my own country history, and i was educated to think we were always good guys,

if you talk with me with information based on platforms that don't have any hidden agenda, we can talk,
any other thing, i don't believe it, even with conscience i don't give importance on not believing it

@Sedai like i said i don't think about what i say, don't see much worth in it,
i don't change my opinion based on information that doesn't come from independent sources,
sources that don't have the "man's dressed in dark suits" behind, and they are difficult to find nowadays,
about not giving importance to the subject, honestly i don't give much, because i, i'm sorry,
i think people who do are fools, because like the thug said, presidents don't really change,
is always the same thing all over again, so why should i follow there news and discuss there information?
and because i don't choose words carefully and people tend to miss use them, i'll quote someone:

we do not talk - we bludgeon one another with facts and theories gleaned from cursory readings of newspapers, magazines and digests.
-Henry Miller

i try choose my cursory readings, magazines and digest carefully



I'm not sure if this is true; lots of military action doesn't involve bombs. Unless you mean refusing to use bombs, for any reason, for an extended period of time? If so, that seems like a tricky thing to commit to given how many rogue actors have bombs. And I think "bombs are bad" is a pretty reasonable starting place, but it ultimately has to grapple with that reality and incorporate it somehow to be a workable political position, in the same way crime policy has to incorporate the fact that people are gonna do some heinous stuff to each other sometimes.


It was homicides by firearm. It was cut in half from 1993 to 2013. IIRC it ticked up in the last year or two (I'd have to check to confirm), but it's still much, much lower overall.

Violent crime in general has been declining for decades. Kinda makes you wonder why it seems like the opposite from the coverage, eh? A question that folds neatly into what I was saying earlier about coming to conclusions from anecdotal news stories and the like. There's so much going on in the world that it's far too easy to create totally opposite impressions based on what gets talked about...
Are you basing your stance on this one report? The story looks legit but it comes from the Post. So to me, I'm in quandry. In order to refute you I have to refute the post. Which isn't hard to do. But I don't think that really helps my case.
__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...