 | | Re: On the veracity of statistics in general
|
|
(...) I agree with all of this, but even still tend to accept statistics unless I have a reason to not. I suspect that the UN rarely lies in it's reporting of statistics. I think accidental inaccuracies are more worrisome. In the page Scott recently (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: How I learned to stop worrying and love the beef (was: What's the beef?)
|
|
(...) Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face? Dave! (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: On the veracity of statistics in general
|
|
(...) Oh, and another thing... nice tangent. Why not actually think about what was written, the way Christopher did, and respond with a reasoned, well thought out reply that shows that you aren't posting first and thinking later. That is a bit (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: On the veracity of statistics in general
|
|
(...) I don't see "who knows" as *accepting* anything. (...) No I wasn't, just that I was willing to quote it to shut YOU up because YOU accept those statistics apparently without question. Doesn't mean *I* do. But I think UN statistics on the (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What's the beef? (was Spam Spam Spam etc ) (Was *not* Spam & Chips)
|
|
(...) Gosh...I've eaten beef more recently than that and I'm vegetarian. (...) There's a lot to be said for growth hormones. Chris (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Put three libertarians together in a room and they won't be able to agree where to go for lunch...
|
|
Larry, 5 Points on this 1) A point of integrity : I think the description you give of who was intended to take part in the survey is misleading (I base this on the link you give). 2) A point of integrity : You describe the survey as "totally (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "Centuries old piece of paper" still pretty darn good
|
|
(...) Indeed. And rather than answer it - Larry deletes it! He needs to get his head out of the sand. Scott A (23 years ago, 14-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Liberterian comes through for the Bill of Rights (was a slur
|
|
(...) "may well" is not "is" (...) So you have no basis for *your* mudslinging??? Have you no shame? (...) Why do we want to stop hijackings? To protect life and commerce? Your proposal will not do the latter. (...) You were taking a principle to (...) (23 years ago, 14-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Cuba is a terrorist state (was Re: Any truth in this one - Cuba as a terrostist state.
|
|
(...) Yep. You last comment is old news in the UK. A few years ago we literally caught a boat load or arms (inc SAMs) from Libya. I think since then, Libya told the UK just what it had supplied to help counter the IRA. See: (URL) the help the IRA (...) (23 years ago, 14-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | What, no answer? (Re: "Centuries old piece of paper" still pretty darn good)
|
|
"Scott A" <eh105jb@mx1.pair.com> wrote in message news:<GL3oK6.4E4@lugnet.com>... (...) us (...) What, no answer? (...) was (...) the (...) What, no answer? (...) imposed, (...) What, no answer? Scott A (23 years ago, 14-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
|
(...) Hmm. It looks like it does not agree with you view, so you start throwing mud. For the record, I think that is the 1st time Arundhati Roy (a booker prize winner - so no fool) has written for the Guardian. (...) Show us where the distortion is. (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | "humility"
|
|
(...) I was not aware that there was a competition for the "best country in the world". If I were to choose, I doubt it would be the UK or the USA. I'd probably choose some small state which did not bully anyone, support human rights abuses - but (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | How odd ? (Re: A N T H R A X - ... )
|
|
(...) As it uses UN data, I did not think it would show anything as far as you were concerned? Is your head out of the sand now? Larry: ==+== I have no faith in statistics that are originated by the UN unless independently corroborated, and that's a (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Yep, that is correct: (URL) A (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) But you did once say one side was “far worse”. You never retracted that comment, but you never justified it either. As far as I can remember? (...) I hear what you are saying Larry, but I'm sure to most people it does look like you defend (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: On the veracity of statistics in general
|
|
(...) That's right, you don't like UN stats do you? You said this: ==+== I have no faith in statistics that are originated by the UN unless independently corroborated, and that's a blanket statement. The UN apparatus is highly politicised and tends (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | What's the beef? (was Spam Spam Spam etc ) (Was *not* Spam & Chips)
|
|
Perhaps you may have been here long enough to catch "mad cow disease"? Does your brain feel a little spongy? :-) I have not eaten beef more than ~12 years now due to BSE. Needless to say I have never eaten any beef from the USA, as it is unfit for (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More LP S P A M : (was Re: Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment)
|
|
(...) I think we touched on this before. I think the 1st step in understanding your stats is to know what each country defines as a violent crime *and* what proportion of crime is reported – but these factors may well have been taken into account in (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: censoring
|
|
(...) Larry, Read the article. Read my message. Then come back and tell me my description is inaccurate. Scott A (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: censoring
|
|
(...) I neither have one, nor do I have any intention of getting one. When cities in the US start having castles like this in their city centre, I may consider getting one: (URL) neanderthalls say I am anti-US, I just like to make it clear that the (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: On the veracity of statistics in general
|
|
(...) Good summary Larry, I've been thinking about these issues a lot lately and agree with a lot of what you have said in your post. I think some of this is covered in the book called "how to lie with Statistics" by Darrell Huff. I've never read (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: censoring
|
|
(...) If I remember right, these images may be released at a later date after the goverments use period is over (i.e. we are not at war). However, the article says: "According to reports, the decision to shut down access to satellite images was (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
I have already disclosed my poor knowledge of the English language with emarrasing results, but yet I can't stay off this definition debate. The words terror and terrorism are obviously from the same root, but to me, they have different meanings. I (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
Atomic bombs on cities Hijacked planes into towers In my opinion both are equally terrifying. I will stand by my analysis of the word *terror* and apply it to both acts. We praise the pilots as patriots who flew over Japan. We denigrate the (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | On the veracity of statistics in general
|
|
I was doing some Googletrolling with various search keywords, looking for some scholarly work on the accuracy of UN statistics. It's a relatively tough search... I ran across this tidbit: (URL) this is anecdotal of course, but there is a lot of (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment (was a slur of a subject line
|
|
(...) Well it could just be those pesky UN statistics... but I just went to the Red Cross site to check on blood donation criteria and they don't want your blood if you have spent more than 3 months total in the UK or Ireland since 1980 (or 6 months (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More LP S P A M : (was Re: Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment)
|
|
(...) Interesting. A) Does the difference in these stats and the ones I cited suggest that one set is incorrect, or do you think the difference between violent crimes (my stats) and murder (your stats) is really that lopsided? It makes it sound like (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: censoring
|
|
(...) He'd have a case if the contract he signed guaranteed accuracy. But of course I suspect whatever court he tried to sue in would soon be host to a *host* of suits against HIM. Friedman tangentially touches on this in Machinery of Freedom, if (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: censoring
|
|
(...) The result of course would be that I wouldn't want the judge's job, nor any part in the jury :) Honestly, I think it would depend on the company's honest intent, the ability to prove that intent, the measurment of the damages resulting to bin (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: censoring
|
|
(...) Here's a hypothetical: what if some company sells bin Laden et al bogus but real-seeming photos giving false information? What if, afterward, bin Laden would seek damages from the company for its deceptive product? Dave! (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: censoring
|
|
(...) Maybe we'll even sell them to him :) Of course the price may be non-monetary! And of course, no guarantees on picture quality, either :) DaveE (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: censoring
|
|
(...) It is indeed fortunate for your reputation that you said "may" (nice pre-weasel on your part) because it is in no way censorship to buy up all of some good under the terms of a previously negotiated contract. bin Laden, or the media, are (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: censoring
|
|
(...) The part that confused me was the "we". When did you get your green card? DaveE (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: censoring
|
|
(...) That is why I said *may* Dan. Did you read it all? ==+== However, the move by the Pentagon simply to resort to buying exclusive rights to all the Ikonos pictures could be something of a canny move. Had it just used its legal powers of shutter (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: censoring
|
|
(...) DanB (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | censoring
|
|
It looks like we may be censoring again: (URL) A (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) The actual overall point is that one definition does not apply to both; it it did, there would be no debate. The only way that a single definition of "terrorism" can be made to apply is by reaching into the word's history, rather than by (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
the overall point here is that several people in this debate could not agree with eachother's definition of terrorism. It was my intention to show that there is actually one definition that does apply. in an earlier post a few months ago, I (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) That's fine, but your method is also somewhat arbitrary and could border on pedantic. Elsewhere in this debate dozens of posts have been devoted to exactly the problem of dictionary definitions relative to the real world; on paper, the (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: oops, my bad!!
|
|
Yup, already looking into it. It's amazing what you think you know sometimes, only to find that you don't really know it at all. I'm still a bit startled that I could confuse two of bloodiest wars in history, boggling!! (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) No, what I am doing is returning the word to its base definition... it's original meaning. Terror Terrorize Terrorist Terrorism Terrible All of the above mean; to frighten For you to say that the bionicles are *terrible* is fine, unfortunately (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | broad brush terrorists (was Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?)
|
|
(...) I could, but I do not agree that terrorism is immoral. It depends on what the fight is against. There are instances where terrorists get broad based support for their actions where they are viewed as fighting against "immoral" regimes. If we (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More LP S P A M : (was Re: Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment)
|
|
(...) Well it looks like she is less likely to be murdered. By chance I found this: (URL) know some numbskulls don't like UN stats, but it gives us this: 1997 Homicide (male) USA : 11.8 per 100,000 England & Wales : 0.8 per 100,000 (6.8% of the USA (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Public v Private Health Care (Re: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is")
|
|
(...) I looked at this a little more. The USA spends 12.9% of its GDP on health (highest in the world). The UK spends just 6.8% of GDP. France spends 9.3% and has the best Healthcare system - as rated by WHO (not the pop group). The UK system is (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
|
(...) Does the fact that Bush said something to that effect make his statement true? Fredrik (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) I gave Aug 45 as an "example" of terrorism. No attempt at definition. I've *never* considered "definition" a subjective term, however, I *do* consider "terrorism" subjective (as I outlined here (URL) if you consider terrorism a subjective (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Especially evil? No, or at least, I wouldn't deem it as such. As I've said elsewhere, the fact that it employed fear doesn't necessarily make it immoral, and even if it does, it doesn't mean it's necessarily unjustified. (...) I'm highly in (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) There was, in fact, an attempted coup by high-ranking officers once the Emperor's wishes had become known. The problem with Fascist thinking was that it was seen as a struggle of civilizations; Hitler in fact articulated that if the German (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Final Post
|
|
Good for you Dan! I'll try to do the same. You have way too much talent, so why waste it arguing with Larry? ;-) (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) I think you've defined, although in your opinion, that the bombings were terrorism. That's actually a pretty good analogy--the word "terrorism" has a semantic load, as does "definition." Is it a subjective or objective term? I'm not making a (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Final Post
|
|
It was brought to my attention that posting to this forum has been a big waste of time so consider this my final post. I'm not interested in debating anymore or following any further discussions. It's not fun and nothing we say here makes any (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) I actually agree to a large extent that the tactic was to induce fear. That is in fact a legitimate war strategy at some level. The only way to win a war is to win the morale battle. You can't kill every single enemy. This is why a (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) I haven't presented any reasoning in support of that before. All my reasoning before has been about whether or not it was terrorism - nothing about morality in there. ROSCO (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) I've gotta pull you up on that one, Larry. Just as not all US citizens are "good" or support the current war, I see it as impossible to make such a huge generalisation about Japanese civilians (no matter where they happened to live / work) in (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) I would argue that it wasn't unprovoked. And why were the innocent civilians unsuspecting, when bin Laden had already given several warnings, and "declared war on the US" some 5 years earlier? And just for thought, how much warning did the (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Are you satisfied with the reasoning you presented before in support of that? Has anything about it changed with Dave Eaton's presentation of his rationale? (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) a (...) Yes ROSCO (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Anthrax outside US: threat or paranoia?
|
|
Hi all, I am posting this because of the recent news about anthrax-bearing letters in the US. I know those are causing concern across the atlantic, so I won't discuss *their* impact. Which is REAL, BTW. But one thing is bugging me: in the last (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) "As immediately as possible" I suppose you could question, but according to the timeline: - 8/6 Bomb #1 - 8/9 Bomb #2 - 8/14 Surrender There was more time inbetween the 2nd bomb and the surrender than between the 1st and 2nd bombs, in fact. (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: oops, my bad!!
|
|
(...) Hi Kirby, You don't really need to be sorry. So maybe you made some confusions... it happens to us all sometimes. Nothing to worry about - I just feared you were wanting to re-write history! :-) If you want to refresh your history knowledge, I (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) I think I missed that the first time. It was my understanding that they surrendered about as immediately as could be possibly arranged given the circumstances. Can you restate why you feel they did not surrender immediately? (...) I fear a (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) No, you said "completely" closed minded, not me. I don't recall saying "completely." (...) Sobs of utter appreciation, my friend, that the Great and Powerful Lar would so generously grace us with his fair hand of understanding. I am beset with (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) It tends to be obscure, but there was never a decision to drop Bomb 1, a pause, and then a decision to drop Bomb 2. The decision was made to drop two bombs. Were both bombs necessary? Maybe not - they may have eventually surrendered anyway (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Oh, that was just sarcasm about the last time you accused me of over-analyzing a situation down to many constituent parts and rating those parts as nigh on irrelevant. Hence the little ';)'. (...) You just hit the nail on the head, didn't you? (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Still, my point stands then? Whether or not they were cowardly is irrelevant to whether it was terrorism, yes? (...) !! Sure there is. Attempting to get someone/a group of people to do something by making them respond to terror that you induce (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) No, at least I don't parse it that way. Feel free to diagram the sentence though, so I can see it! (...) The world is a complicated place. Or would you rather Truman hadn't considered all those factors? You can handle the complexity, I think. (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Exactly correct-- my point was that I'm not sure I understand what ends you believe were intended. If the end was "to scare the Japanese" rather than "to have Japan surrender", then yes, I agree that the bombing may have been necessary. I just (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) In your defense, though, I would assert that it's not necessary (possible?) to be completely moral. However, in a field of several choices, the greatest "net good" outcome is preferable to less "net good" outcomes. We can be criticized after (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) It would still be cowardly for them to fly their own planes into the buildings because they would be making an unprovoked attack against innocent and unsuspecting civilians on the civilians' home soil during a time when the home nation was at (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Isn't that what I said? (...) Now you're the one who's going for the complicated explanation ;) I could draw it out further and say isn't one of Osama's major "justifications" with the US the fact that we dropped the Bomb on the Japanese as an (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) I think we differ on this. You can't separate ends from means. Here's my view If the end was intended to be moral, but it is achieved by immoral actions (immoral in this usage means bad morals, not amoral) it comes out immoral anyway. If the (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Just some minor picking while I try to think about that hole. (...) Dan's referenced site makes the case that it wasn't a "drop one, then decide to drop the other" plan. Both were dropped as part of the same plan, so you should take issue with (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Well-- two things. First off, you may be quite right-- I don't really know what our mentality was at the time. Perhaps that was the best information we had available, which would mean that an A-bomb hit MAY have been the only way to show that (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Yes, but not for the reasons you state, I think. The hole is that I don't think morality is necessarily tied to these events. Whether or not it was a moral action doesn't matter to whether it was "necessary" or not, unless your ends are (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Yes, let's not blur the issue-- what part does being cowardly have in being a terrorist? Let's say they flew their own planes into our buildings. No longer a terrorist action? I don't think whether they/we were cowardly or not is really (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) no argument there from me - one question though. what if, fearing the canadians, you abandon your land for 30 years? do you still own it, and everything that has been built on it since? it's possible to contend that whoever settled the (now (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Aren't you saying that it's not the case that you didn't know that what you hadn't said contradicted what he had said wasn't the case? Dave! (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Everything I have ever read about WWII Japanese suggests that there was pretty strong belief that they would likely have fought bitterly to the end had something overwhelming happened to make the entire populace recognize that further fighting (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
Typo alert! (...) This should say "we have to accept the outcome that they view themselves as good and us as evil as JUST AS VALID as our own finding of the opposite" Too many negatives and I got confused, I guess. Sorry about that, peeps. (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Well that's the crux of the hole in my argument. Unless it can be shown that it is NOT a subjective judgement (that is, that it's not just a morally relative judgement), we have to accept the outcome that they view themselves as evil and (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Sarcastically. (1) That's distortive because you snipped the cite. At the same time you were composing your post accusing me of being closed minded, I was composing a post acknowledging a serious hole in the argument I advanced. That's not the (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) So.... how is that not "might makes right?" Or "Larry makes right" as the case may be. How is this subjective judgement any better than their subjective judgment of us? (...) By my book it only matters what the intentions are of those (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Well, that's a little hasty. I consider Bionicle to be terrible, but LEGO isn't a terrorist organization as a result. I would suggest that, rather than trying to define words (which, to me, suggests an effort to identify with relative (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
<snip> But though it's changing the (...) <snip> I love trying to define words. I also can't stay out of this forum. Anyhow, for what it's worth, here's my take on the definition of terrorism... I consider *war*, in general, to be a terrible thing. (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Palestinians & Israeli occupation (Again) (was Re: Hiroshima... )
|
|
(...) He tried that with me, it did not wash either. Further, I fail to see why Israel is not a friend of the USA? They look pretty loyal to me. Certainly not an enemy? I also fail to see what this has to do with Hiroshima? (...) No, but the killing (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) I don't view the terrorists as cowards. They may well have been deluded, but they were not cowards. The answer to Ross's Truman question is "no". Although, Truman did not drop the bomb personally, he is responsible for that action. It could be (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) By "harshest" do you mean more harsh criticism than against any other? I would agree that Israel needs harsh criticism of some of it's tactics. You've got a lot to do to convince me that the government Israel is worse than the government of (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Let's not blur the issue here. What was cowardly about the Sept 11 terrorism was that it took no courage to hijack civilian aircraft during peacetime and steer helpless civilian passengers into buildings. That's hardly the same as the US (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Founding Fathers Anti-American?
|
|
(...) All, I read text linked below last night. When I did, I realised that it linked quite well with a number of themes we (as a group) have given time here. It is heavily laced with paranoia, but it is still an interesting perspective. Have a (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is"
|
|
(...) Hmm. I see your point. Secure means this: "able to avoid being harmed by any risk, danger or threat" Simply, free means this "not limited or controlled". I think the UK being "gun free", gives me both. I suppose another freedom I have lost (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) the (...) I see no definition there, only opinion. (...) I've made my distinction several times before - attacks on *military targets* I don't consider terrorism. (...) Compared to what? (...) ????? So what???? What has their "expectation of (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: eBay's Auction for America
|
|
(...) rude (NOT POLITE) adjective not polite; offensive or embarrassing No doubt calling somebody a liar without justifying it is not rude according to Larry's ethical code. Then again, he probably thinks "ethics" is the English county next to Kent. (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) You said it, not me. (...) How grand of you, we're truly blessed (sniff sniff). And what exactly am I supposed to change my mind about? (...) You jump, I jump. Each time somebody wants to throw support toward Israel, I'm here for the reality (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Two parts then-- "war" and "appropriate". I think whether we were at war or not in this particular example is pretty gosh-darn settled. We *were* at war. But that comes into question more in the more recent Sept. 11th example. More on that (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Put three libertarians together in a room and they won't be able to agree where to go for lunch...
|
|
A survey was held recently, I got the email about it and participated, but it was intended for LP members only, so I didn't mention it here. I found the results rather interesting. Totally unscientific as it was self selected whether to participate, (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) By that definition, *any* act taken in a military conflict is "terrorism." The major difference is that the civilians of Japan had no basis for an *expectation* of safety--especially when you consider what happened to Tokyo in March, and (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) how (...) It's easy to use words like "cowardly" in such situations - were the pilots flying the planes which dropped the bombs "cowardly"? No they were following orders (they may have even volunteered). Was Truman "cowardly" then - he wasn't (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Yep, completely closed minded, that's me. (URL) admitting that my arguments might not be 100% water tight or that I might be wrong about anything. Oh wait, you were talking about yourself there, and not me, weren't you, since you've never ever (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It terrorism (was: Necessary)?
|
|
(...) One way or another 8?( (...) I don't really look at it as valid - I'm not sure they (Al Qaida, whoever we're fighting...) view it that black & white either. But I would also ask, does it matter which side is "good" and which is "evil"? Does (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) The problem is the hole I dug for myself here. We hold them to be terrorists but they do not hold themselves as such. Rather they see themselves as combatants in a war against evil (US) which they *have* declared, some time ago, and which they (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
