The Cursed Pit of Wretched Political Adulation

#41
The moral equivalence and lack of historic understanding is staggering, but emotion based ideology is impervious to reason and facts and accepts no grey areas. Self righteousness is a problem.
What gives you the right to be so sure of any facts, there are facts on both sides. And you have the audacity to claim that “Self righteousness is a problem”. Staggering arrogance.
 
#42
Steve, we have to assume that when people write about themselves on the forum, they are telling the truth - unless of course there is evidence to the contrary. It is decidedly discourteous to question what Eric has written without evidence.
Yet again you miss the point by a country mile.
 
#46
What gives you the right to be so sure of any facts, there are facts on both sides. And you have the audacity to claim that “Self righteousness is a problem”. Staggering arrogance.
The same right that allows people to call him a dickhead and a liar and sprinkle their prose with profanities and insults: free speech. It's the same right that allows me to call a pox on both houses. As I see it, both sides are intractably invested in their views, and I doubt if anyone knows the whole truth. Like most things, I suspect there are rights and wrongs on both sides and that in reality things are a lot more complex.

But in any case, what are we doing here discussing pure politics when we have different fish to fry? This thread is tedious and pointless -- one of the reasons I'm posting less and less on skeptiko. It's rapidly becoming a metaphysical desert.
 
#47
This thread is tedious and pointless
In your opinion. And arguing the toss about metaphysics is less so?

I’d sooner try and inform people about real things and real problems. Eric has insulted me more than once, so spare me his defence.
“Profanities and insults.” Pah! Don’t make me laugh Michael. This thread is separate from the metaphysical stuff. If you don’t like it - don’t read it!
 
#48
And what is this, if I’m being decidedly discourteous ? Get lost!
Steve, I haven't followed this thumb sucking discussion - it didn't sound interesting, but if you think someone has been unreasonably rude to you, why not report the post in question. But look Steve, we simply have to assume that when people share basic facts about themselves, they are accurate. I think we made somewhat of an exception in the case of fls, but she has gone from this forum at least!

Please let's all calm down. People have differing views about politics, but there is no sense in falling out in a big way about it.

David
 
#49
but if you think someone has been unreasonably rude to you, why not report the post in question. But look Steve, we simply have to assume that when people share basic facts about themselves, they are accurate.
I’ve no real interest in reporting anyone, but when Eric says annoying stuff like that, and you ignore what he’s said, but write a post to me saying I’m being decidedly discourteous, it smells of bias. Surely you can see that?

Saying “it didn’t sound interesting” is a bit patronising, too, don’t you think? I thought you followed Eric’s conversation says with great enthusiasm? If it was my conversation...none taken!

Secondly, I have no doubt that Eric is telling the truth, but the point is that it means very little! We don’t know anything about him! It’s all very vague. Yet you have twice suggested that this somehow gives him a special insight into the Israeli/Arab conflict that I and others couldn’t have. My dad fought in Korea, does that somehow make me a Korean War specialist? It’s laughable. My good friend is Iraqi, he left when he was in his late teens. He is now more British than I am! I grew up in South Africa, a country I love, does that mean I should have an insight into the lives of bushmen ?

It would help if he would tell us more details. If he doesn’t feel like doing so, then doubt about his bias etc must remain.

I do get annoyed when people get uppity when slightly colourful language is used, yet remain silent when some quite nasty opinions about different races or religions are made known. Still, I suppose it reveals their bias, and a certain pomposity.
 
#50
I’ve no real interest in reporting anyone, but when Eric says annoying stuff like that, and you ignore what he’s said, but write a post to me saying I’m being decidedly discourteous, it smells of bias. Surely you can see that?

Saying “it didn’t sound interesting” is a bit patronising, too, don’t you think? I thought you followed Eric’s conversation says with great enthusiasm? If it was my conversation...none taken!
Honestly I do not have time to read everything on here, but I like to read interesting discussions - I assume everyone is like that.

I am very far from biassed against you, but you do seem in a combative mood today!

I absolutely do rely on people pressing the 'Report' button if they feel something needs action.
Secondly, I have no doubt that Eric is telling the truth, but the point is that it means very little! We don’t know anything about him! It’s all very vague. Yet you have twice suggested that this somehow gives him a special insight into the Israeli/Arab conflict that I and others couldn’t have. My dad fought in Korea, does that somehow make me a Korean War specialist? It’s laughable. My good friend is Iraqi, he left when he was in his late teens. He is now more British than I am! I grew up in South Africa, a country I love, does that mean I should have an insight into the lives of bushmen ?
Well again, don't we have to give someone who says their family comes from a particular region, some assumption that if they mention this, they feel it gave them some insight. As I mentioned, I have read before that Muslims (maybe in name only) who emigrated some time ago, are concerned that some of the feuding and aggression they had tried to escape, is following them to the West.
It would help if he would tell us more details. If he doesn’t feel like doing so, then doubt about his bias etc must remain.

I do get annoyed when people get uppity when slightly colourful language is used, yet remain silent when some quite nasty opinions about different races or religions are made known. Still, I suppose it reveals their bias, and a certain pomposity.
The trouble with the PC culture, is that it just makes any sensible discussion of a whole range of issues practically impossible. The 'Left' use that to try to send out their own messages and brand any other messages racist/sexist/homophobic/whatever. I don't think it is possible to avoid the fact that some cultures contain some objectionable practices. I mean here is a BBC report (taken more or less at random):

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...hild-brides-marriage-shravasti-india-culture/

Does the fact that the BBC criticises that aspect of Indian culture make the BBC racist?

David
 
#51
With this, you demonstrate my point: you explicitly side with the bully. Your attitude seems to be something along these lines: "How awful that the descendants of a bully might have some of the spoils of the bully's wrongs taken back from them - after all, it was the bully who committed the wrongs, not those descendants. As for the descendants of the bullied - fuck 'em. That's just the way the world works, folks! Toughen up, princesses!"
The trouble is that the overwhelming majority of Western people who lived in Colonial times or slave owning times, got damn all out of these horrible practices. They got sent abroad to fight and died of wounds of foreign diseases.

History is chock full of atrocities - you couldn't possibly fix even one with reparations. It is suggested that one cause of WWII was that Germany was expected to pay reparations after the previous war.

The fad of paying reparations for former bad deeds probably doesn't even get money to the people who need help, because if you are paying off your sins, you can't really specify what the money is spent on. This probably means that much of it is spent on arms that will ultimately spread even more misery.

I guess Eric rails against a certain naive superficiality that tries to make people do things because they have been made to feel guilty, rather than because they rationally think they are helping anyone. I mean for example, whether or not you believe in 'climate change', is it rational that a country like China can sign up to the Paris agreement, and yet still go on opening coal mines and coal fired power stations? Does the fact that 'we' mistreated China in past centuries justify that?

Some people are gentle souls, and would never purposefully hurt a fly. The vast majority of bullies have ‘good’ reason for acting like they do. Be it that they were themselves bullied at school, or at home, or a million other reasons.
I was bullied in school, but would that give me any excuse for bullying others now?
I mean heck, people have to be responsible for what they do, except in very rare circumstances. For example a few people have committed crimes while sleepwalking, and been found not-guilty for that reason.

Let's please try to continue this discussion in a calmer fashion - ignoring the title that someone gave this thread! That means everyone - Eric, Laird, Steve, and maybe even me!

David
 
#53
Here is what people who live in the US think of our news media:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...a_about_the_same_as_they_trust_wikipedia.html
"We asked about national political reporters, are they credible, are they reliable? And you know, a little more than one out of three people say yes."

If you can't comprehend how people could vote for Trump and continue to support him, maybe it's because you are misinformed about him?

Maybe you are lied to by media and by politicians who are trying to further their own personal gain or political objectives.
 
Last edited:
#56
Well Eric explained that his family originates in one of the Arab communities in the Middle East, so I think perhaps we should listen to what he has to say a bit. In years gone by, I used to read of accounts of suicide bombers in Israel ans equate them to the Buddhist monks who would burn themselves to death to protest against the South Vietnamese leader (but without hurting anyone else). However, I am afraid I don't feel the same about this any more - it isn't clear that they would accept anything less than the total surrender of Israel. I mean, at one point they had Jimmy Carter trying to get them to agree, and even he couldn't achieve peace.

David
Armenian, not Arab, but yes of the same communities.

I thought Col Jessup was the closest thing to a hero of that stupid movie. He thought the young Marine was slacking and slacking can't be tolerated. Turns out the PFC had a heart condition. That was sad. However, he signed up for the life and the life is about being combat ready to the max. Guys die in training accidents and from stress on unknown health conditions all of the time.

That's the price of protecting all of the people that won't or can't protect themselves.

For every Col Jessup protecting you, there a dozen out to subjugate you or kill you. You can wish everyone was a sheep, but they aren't.
 
#57
The same right that allows people to call him a dickhead and a liar and sprinkle their prose with profanities and insults: free speech. It's the same right that allows me to call a pox on both houses. As I see it, both sides are intractably invested in their views, and I doubt if anyone knows the whole truth. Like most things, I suspect there are rights and wrongs on both sides and that in reality things are a lot more complex.

But in any case, what are we doing here discussing pure politics when we have different fish to fry? This thread is tedious and pointless -- one of the reasons I'm posting less and less on skeptiko. It's rapidly becoming a metaphysical desert.
Michael,
I think it's an important, albeit ugly conversation. It's not really politics. It's more of a spiritual discussion in disguise.

Some people think they are being "spiritual" by identifying "victims" that need saving and being pacifists. On the other hand we have the Mahabharata telling us - or Arjuna, at least - to go out and kill his usurping relatives. Islam is all about slaughtering infidels. Native Americans would prey to the Great Spirit for power to kill their enemies. Aztecs cut the still beating hearts out of scarified captives y the hundreds, even thousands in religious ceremonies.

Where the hell do people like Steve get off preaching their version of morality as being a universal truth?
 
#58
Looks like you avoided responding directly to my point, so here it is again in case you care to acknowledge it: you don't care about the harms that your tribe (or any group of bullies with whom you identify) inflicts on others - that's just par for the course; it's the necessary reality of the world - but if any attempt is made at restorative justice on your tribe (let alone an actual harm of aggression), to ease the harm your tribe has inflicted upon others, then all of a sudden it's a ghastly wrong and you're morally indignant at the sheer outrage of it.

You suffer from a gross double standard.

Moreover, you seem not to recognise that your own moral indignation does not entitle you to accuse others of asserting their moral superiority: you in your own way are asserting the moral superiority of your own view - "might makes right" essentially. Here, again, you suffer from a double standard.

their favorite "victims" in the past have been the aggressor.
The indigenous of the land in which I live, Australia, were not aggressors against the British. The British came in uninvited and without the indigenous Australians even knowing who they were. The situation is the same in the USA. That the indigenous of the lands the British invaded might have fought amongst themselves does not justify the British aggression against them. Who could think and propose something so utterly daft?

I've seen people like you F' up matters
To echo somebody from earlier in the thread: what you've "seen" doesn't impress me.

[Murder] occurs as a easily foreseeable consequence of your position and actions
This isn't child pop psychology
I wonder how "adult" is the psychology of "He who holds the biggest gun gets to take what he wants from everybody else - because, after all, if they were in the same position, they would do the same to him", and how much murder is an easily foreseeable consequence of that psychology...
 
Last edited:
#59
The trouble is that the overwhelming majority of Western people who lived in Colonial times or slave owning times, got damn all out of these horrible practices.
No, David, that is not the trouble. The trouble is that an entire other group was subjected to the consequences of being turned into slaves. Like Eric, you can only think of your own tribe, and not of those who suffered at their hands.
 
Top