My argument is logical in nature. Saying all those people were completely innocent is an emotional basis, and is irrational. How about instead of calling me names you find an intelligent way to refute?

quote:

Originally posted by Aquarian My argument is logical in nature.

Yeah, I was really with you there until you implied that those who died in the WTC attacks had it coming...

quote:

Saying all those people were completely innocent is an emotional basis, and is irrational.

And what crimes, exactly, were they guilty of that may have justified the manner in which they were killed?

quote:

How about instead of calling me names you find an intelligent way to refute?

I didn't call you any names.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade And what crimes, exactly, were they guilty of that may have justified the manner in which they were killed?

I think you misunderstood my original post. I didn't say they deserved what they got, I said they walked into it themselves.

If a man is driving at three times the speed limit under bad weather conditions, then loses control of his car, slams into a tree and dies. Who's fault is it? The weather, the tree, or his own? His crashing into the tree is the direct cause of his death, and he crashed into it because he couldn't see it soon enough, but none of that ever would've happened if he had been driving responsibly. That doesn't mean he deserved to die, but had he been wiser, he could have avoided it completely. What about the passenger in his car? Well, he wasn't driving, so how is he responsible?

Now apply that to the 9-11 situation. America is a multicultural democracy with many differing opinions. In those towers, there were people who's actions and opinions are directly or indirectly a cause of the conflict. Maybe they're reservists, maybe they're important CEOs with hands in the right places, or heck, maybe they just voted republican in the last election. Those people are the drivers. In that tower, there were also pacifists, intellectuals, and people who simply had nothing to do with any of this. They're the passengers.

So the drivers were victims of their own stupidity, while the passengers were victims of the drivers' stupidity.

quote:

Originally posted by ProDiGaL They were just ppl who hated our freedom!lol

Insert the word democracy somewhere in there too.

___________________
Mystic Mind - DJ Mixes
http://soundcloud.com/mystic-mind

Facebook page
https://www.facebook.com/DJMysticMind

quote:

Originally posted by Aquarian I think you misunderstood my original post. I didn't say they deserved what they got, I said they walked into it themselves. If a man is driving at three times the speed limit under bad weather conditions, then loses control of his car, slams into a tree and dies. Who's fault is it? The weather, the tree, or his own? His crashing into the tree is the direct cause of his death, and he crashed into it because he couldn't see it soon enough, but none of that ever would've happened if he had been driving responsibly. That doesn't mean he deserved to die, but had he been wiser, he could have avoided it completely. What about the passenger in his car? Well, he wasn't driving, so how is he responsible? Now apply that to the 9-11 situation. America is a multicultural democracy with many differing opinions. In those towers, there were people who's actions and opinions are directly or indirectly a cause of the conflict. Maybe they're reservists, maybe they're important CEOs with hands in the right places, or heck, maybe they just voted republican in the last election. Those people are the drivers. In that tower, there were also pacifists, intellectuals, and people who simply had nothing to do with any of this. They're the passengers. So the drivers were victims of their own stupidity, while the passengers were victims of the drivers' stupidity.

Might I ask what exactly are you talking about, you throw around general statements about how this is because of that, it seems to me like you just hate the general American society and what you feel it stands for in today's world more than you can bring yourself to denigrate the attackers. You claim the victims walked into it themselves, yet you maintain there are those who have nothing to do with the conflict but were hapless victims. In none of this however do I see a point to qualify your statement except your attempts to blame the victims for their own deaths, there is no misunderstanding of your post.

___________________
Trance = Heart, Mind, Body and Soul all in 1

Current fav. Global Experience = Madras

Another thing to note is the volume of vitriol that is spewed in these Mosques by imams in the Muslim World and some societies into which they have migrated, such as London, about kill this and kill that, death to one and death to the other. Imagine such text being preached in Western churches about lets go murder Muslims and down with the Muslim world and destroy them. No one ever makes comments about such behaviors. So go figure that one.

___________________
Trance = Heart, Mind, Body and Soul all in 1

Current fav. Global Experience = Madras

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan it seems to me like you just hate the general American society

I live amongst it, so why would I hate it? No, I hate ignorance, and I hate to see people get stuck in a conflict they don't have anything to do with.

quote:

You claim the victims walked into it themselves, yet you maintain there are those who have nothing to do with the conflict but were hapless victims. In none of this however do I see a point to qualify your statement except your attempts to blame the victims for their own deaths, there is no misunderstanding of your post.

You've pretty much summed it. What's your point here?

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan Another thing to note is the volume of vitriol that is spewed in these Mosques by imams in the Muslim World and some societies into which they have migrated, such as London, about kill this and kill that, death to one and death to the other. Imagine such text being preached in Western churches about lets go murder Muslims and down with the Muslim world and destroy them. No one ever makes comments about such behaviors. So go figure that one.

That's purely a matter of situation. Like I said earlier, the mentalities are the same. Humans are humans wherever they're from. If you could have switched around the americans I reffered to with the terrorists, you'd have the exact same situation - american christians commiting suicide bombings against muslims. But as is, americans won't resort to terrorism, not because they're all high and mighty, but because they're fairly wealthy, they live in comfort, and they have the world's most powerful army with them - so why would they need to? Give Al Quaeda a powerful army and trillions of dollars, and I guarantee you they'll never resort to the same tactics again.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquarian I live amongst it, so why would I hate it? No, I hate ignorance, and I hate to see people get stuck in a conflict they don't have anything to do with.

But yet they seemingly pretty much had it coming, according to you?

quote:

You've pretty much summed it. What's your point here?

I think his point is that you cannot be both a victim AND a culprit, at least you have failed to make a coherent argument for such.

What it appears you are attempting to accomplish here is to overgeneralize the actions of a given government onto its people. If this is indeed your argument, to a very very very slight extent I'm willing to agree with you. In essence we are all responsible for our government's actions as they are the body and voice of the people. But you know as well as I that any given government in history has NEVER been an actual voice of the people, and does not truly represent the public fully, sometimes little at all. That's an idealistic fantasy by any stretch of the imagination.

So you are overstepping a bit here to say that one of my wife's relatives who died that day had it coming, whether he be a "driver" or a "passenger" in this situation. In essence you are essentially stating that no one is innocent under any given circumstances, and that we are all responsible. Again I do agree, but only slightly.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I think his point is that you cannot be both a victim AND a culprit, at least you have failed to make a coherent argument for such.

I didn't say everyone who was killed was responsible - only certain people. And I pretty much explained that in the clearest terms.

quote:

What it appears you are attempting to accomplish here is to overgeneralize the actions of a given government onto its people. If this is indeed your argument, to a very very very slight extent I'm willing to agree with you. In essence we are all responsible for our government's actions as they are the body and voice of the people. But you know as well as I that any given government in history has NEVER been an actual voice of the people, and does not truly represent the public fully, sometimes little at all. That's an idealistic fantasy by any stretch of the imagination.

Agreed. And this is where democracy fails. But you have to remember that, although people don't have direct control over the government, they still had a choice - and yes, the democrats might have done some pretty bad things as well, but if the general populace was wiser, at least one political party would have to adapt and take that stance. So yes, it is a gross generalization, but nevertheless, the values of the administration are shared by a large percentage of the people who voted it in, whom represent about 50% of the american population.

quote:

So you are overstepping a bit here to say that one of my wife's relatives who died that day had it coming, whether he be a "driver" or a "passenger" in this situation.

Attempting to make an emotional statement here won't achieve much. As you've probably noticed I like to view things with cold logic and objectivity.

I'm not certain here but I get the impression a couple of you seem to think I'm saying those people deserve it - or that I would side with the terrorists. But I'm really not. Believe me, if I could have stopped 9-11, I would have without question. What I'm doing here is keeping a neutral perspective and analysing the causes. I don't think anyone deserves to be killed, but I am very angered to see so many people - consciousely or otherwise - fuel this conflict that has caused too many deaths already.

quote:

In essence you are essentially stating that no one is innocent under any given circumstances, and that we are all responsible. Again I do agree, but only slightly.

I'm stating that you're innocent as long as you disagree with the actions that have led to the events in question. If you do agree with them, then you're part of the cause itself, because in a democracy, the blood is on the hands of whoever elected the government - not on the hands of the government itself. The government's job is merely to represent the people who voted for it.

Protestors can whine about Bush all they want - but it's republicans they should be angered at, because without them, GWB would just be the governor of some little redneck state down south.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquarian I didn't say everyone who was killed was responsible - only certain people. And I pretty much explained that in the clearest terms.

So only the Republicans and corporate big whigs were responsible?

Got it, thanks.

quote:

Agreed. And this is where democracy fails. But you have to remember that, although people don't have direct control over the government, they still had a choice - and yes, the democrats might have done some pretty bad things as well, but if the general populace was wiser, at least one political party would have to adapt and take that stance. So yes, it is a gross generalization, but nevertheless, the values of the administration are shared by a large percentage of the people who voted it in, whom represent about 50% of the american population.

Ehh, again I think you're using too big of a paint brush here. While true a little over 50% of the voting public voted for Bush, that does not necessarily equate to over 50% of the American public identifying with his so-called "values" (and I do use that term loosely). That merely means only 50% or more simply got off their asses to vote for the guy. And if you haven't examined things recently, his poll numbers have been taking a nose dive lately as well.

And this does not also account for a given percentage of individuals who merely vote for Bush or a given candidate for the perception of shared values, rather than one who actually shares them. Furthermore, you also must consider those who are either knowingly or unknowingly ignorant of certain negative qualities of their candidate. I tend to find the large majority of voters falling into this category. Not to excuse their ignorance, mind you, but it still falls short of demonstrating a sharing of values between the voter and politician.

quote:

Attempting to make an emotional statement here won't achieve much. As you've probably noticed I like to view things with cold logic and objectivity.

And I must say, you're so gosh darn cute when you're so logically cold! Very becoming!

But serioiusly, keep in mind that you are referring to an incident that in some 6 degrees of separation, pretty much touches everyone in the U.S. and much of the globe on a personal level. You're welcome to talk on an objective level to your heart's content, but please don't expect others to do the same.

Moreover, I think you'll find that I will tend to agree with your views more often than not (i.e. not a very big fan of this current Administration). Nevertheless, 9/11 is and always will be a personal issue with me, a "looney, tree-huggin, hippie liberal". Not that I don't discuss things with "cold logic and objectivity" - I do this quite often on a myriad of topics (do a thread search on Creationism, for example). But honestly, topics aren't all that fun without a little emotion, humor, sarcasm, etc. Don't be afraid to show it from time to time.

quote:

I'm not certain here but I get the impression a couple of you seem to think I'm saying those people deserve it - or that I would side with the terrorists. But I'm really not. Believe me, if I could have stopped 9-11, I would have without question. What I'm doing here is keeping a neutral perspective and analysing the causes. I don't think anyone deserves to be killed, but I am very angered to see so many people - consciousely or otherwise - fuel this conflict that has caused too many deaths already.

While I tend to agree with your sentiments on cause-effect here, I think you are also giving terrorists a little too much of a free pass here. Perhaps if you're willing to throw in the idea that these guys are wee bit fucking looney, and that despite our actions that might provoke their anger, ramming three jets into 3 of our buildings is not quite the proper answer for their anger-management difficulties.

quote:

I'm stating that you're innocent as long as you disagree with the actions that have led to the events in question. If you do agree with them, then you're part of the cause itself, because in a democracy, the blood is on the hands of whoever elected the government - not on the hands of the government itself. The government's job is merely to represent the people who voted for it.

Again I wonder - despite our shortcomings on handling the situation leading up to 9/11 (which admittedly was shared by both Democratic and Republican Administrations), by stating that in essence we merely deserved what we got you are implying that the behavior of the terrorists was acceptible.

I sincerely hope you clarify your position on this.

quote:

Protestors can whine about Bush all they want - but it's republicans they should be angered at, because without them, GWB would just be the governor of some little redneck state down south.

Couldn't agree more, and I'm plenty angered at this turd.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Ehh, again I think you're using too big of a paint brush here. While true a little over 50% of the voting public voted for Bush, that does not necessarily equate to over 50% of the American public identifying with his so-called "values" (and I do use that term loosely). That merely means only 50% or more simply got off their asses to vote for the guy. And if you haven't examined things recently, his poll numbers have been taking a nose dive lately as well.

That's true, but if 50% of the people who voted supported bush, we could assume that more or less 50% of the people who didn't vote would have supported him as well. In any case, the administration must be careful to base their policies on all of the american public, not just the ones who vote, because those people who don't could easily get pissed off and motivated to vote against them.

The administration's poll numbers dropping means they'll have to slightly alter their policies to increase those numbers. This is what I'm talking about.

quote:

And this does not also account for a given percentage of individuals who merely vote for Bush or a given candidate for the perception of shared values, rather than one who actually shares them. Furthermore, you also must consider those who are either knowingly or unknowingly ignorant of certain negative qualities of their candidate. I tend to find the large majority of voters falling into this category. Not to excuse their ignorance, mind you, but it still falls short of demonstrating a sharing of values between the voter and politician.

That makes them victims of their own ignorance. It's not purely a question of values.

quote:

But serioiusly, keep in mind that you are referring to an incident that in some 6 degrees of separation, pretty much touches everyone in the U.S. and much of the globe on a personal level. You're welcome to talk on an objective level to your heart's content, but please don't expect others to do the same.

That's why I feel that I should look at this from a neutral standpoint - because no one else is.

quote:

But honestly, topics aren't all that fun without a little emotion, humor, sarcasm, etc. Don't be afraid to show it from time to time.

I understand that, but what I meant is that emotions have no place as arguments.

quote:

While I tend to agree with your sentiments on cause-effect here, I think you are also giving terrorists a little too much of a free pass here. Perhaps if you're willing to throw in the idea that these guys are wee bit fucking looney, and that despite our actions that might provoke their anger, ramming three jets into 3 of our buildings is not quite the proper answer for their anger-management difficulties.

Well I thought that little bit was obvious to everyone already.

Of course they're looney, but you've got people like that everywhere. What I'm saying is that there's a reason they took planes and slammed them into this particular building - they didn't just do it for fun. Like I mentioned earlier, it's all a matter of situation. There's alot of people in the US who would be stupid and fanatic enough to highjack planes and crash them into buildings full of civilians, but you don't see them doing anything, because they live in the richest country and have the world's biggest army with them - why would they?

Allow me to put it this way: The terrorists are like hungry great whites. If you don't go swimming there with a surfboard that makes you look like a sea turtle, they'll leave you alone.

quote:

you are implying that the behavior of the terrorists was acceptible.

Not at all. What they did wasn't acceptable to the slightest. What I'm saying is that americans are playing with fire, and that's not acceptable either.