Jump to content

Haezed

Senior Members
  • Posts

    322
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Haezed

  1. There is no social benefit to smoking. There is to driving cars.
  2. I believe it has a stabilizing influence. The former. The former again. No. I don't know. It is a helpful analogy if the result of failure is genocide. I don't think the exact nature of the power balance will make too much difference if we exit and the Sunnis are slaughtered en masse. No, I'm asking what if we leave Iraq to its own devices and it implodes. In that event, it would not be a puppet regime. Or could the simple fact that the Sunnis are outnumbered yet oppressed all others in this country for years lead to a blood bath? No, millions lost any chance for freedom in Vietnam after we left but there was no genocide. Yes, pretty easily, to name a couple of examples: Failure would be a real civil war, all out and fought to a conclusion to where one side had complete dominance over the other and exacted genocidal revenge. Failure would be for the surviving entity(ies) to provide safe haven to terrorist groups to cook up WMDs and distribute them to proxies for use in the US.
  3. How am I lying to myself? I don't know the science and have not made a claim that second hand smoke is dangerous. Prove it's safe and remove it's noxious odor and I won't mind anyone smoking next to me.
  4. I agree with all of this except the statement "what matters." I believe the burden of proof is on smokers to justify imposing the possibility of risk on others. Science proves negatives, e.g. drinking water does not cause cancer. When I know that me and my family are not at risk due to other people's smoke, then my only objection will be to the noxious odor and discourteous behavior.
  5. a) This was a particularly gruesome murder and I'm not sure if it is typical fare. b) I'm not sure if there are that many black on white crimes of this horrific nature; most are black on black. c) If this were white on black crime, the result would be different. We all know it.
  6. Haezed

    Patriotism

    Eh? Let me try to tighten my point: 1. Patriotism commonly refers to an emotional state, not specific policy programs. It is usually referred to as love of country, which includes the principles of that country. 2. It is irrational to love the place where you land by accident of your birth. Ditto for the principles of that place because you might be in Germany in 1939. I don't have a love of the religion I was born into why should I of my country? 3. Love, like trust, must be earned. 4. I love this country because I view it to be an oasis of freedom in time and space. You go backwards or forwards in time and you might have a very less free life. I believe America has done great things for the world, is stumbling a bit right now, but generally has good intentions. We were blessed by founding fathers who understood that religious belief should not be coerced. I could go on but I love America for specific concrete reasons, even though I understand that it has not always done right, e.g. slavery. 5. If I did not believe these things, I would not love America. Why should I? The only reason is the genetic imperative to bond to a tribe (as has been discussed above) and our survival as a species may depend on decoupling our actions from the hard coding in our DNA. 6. If someone despises this country, not its current president, but its history, culture and overall impact in this world, it is irrational for them to be patriotic. They may be good people; in fact, if they are correct, they may be the best of people but logically they should not be patriotic people.
  7. I honor your service. My uncle flew bombers over germany. My dad served in the Korean war. I grew up in a generation that did not have such choices to make yet I deeply sincerely honor their service. My father died last Sunday and I was privileged to give a portion of the Eulogy along with my brother and my mother was presented with the flag which made chills run down my spine. Yes, that has been discussed ad nauseum. The OP was asking the other question for a change. You are not responsive to the OP. I understand this position and you could be right. Now are you questioning Bush's patriotism? I see a lot of conclusions here without analysis and no real discussion of the OP.
  8. No it doesn't. It mean's telling congress to either override the veto or send a bill that funds MRAP, etc without strings.
  9. Haezed

    Patriotism

    All of this makes my point; i would not be patriotic to the US if I did not think that there were objective reasons to be proud of the country, its history and culture. If I hated the US, felt it was the greatest threat to world peace, I would not be patriotic so I wouldn't object to people questioning my patriotism.
  10. Why not? Why wouldn't the Shia exact terrible revenge if we left? Stephanopoulos is hardly partisan.
  11. I thought Stephanopoulos tore Edwards into fluffy little pieces in that interview. I don't think there was personal animus but I do think Stephanopoulos showed Edwards is a lightweight. I agree the question was incredibly astute. If you accept the democratic premise that we screwed up by going into Iraq, and that a civil war has resulted, it's not a far step to say that genocide could occur if we leave. Is that a morally defensible position? Are we now compelled to take fix the mess we caused (if you accept the democratic premise)?
  12. With political and media pressure mounting to pull out in the near term, I think we should discuss what the world will look like after we fail. The question was put to John Edwards last Sunday as to whether genocide would result from a US pull out and I thought Edwards didn't really have an answer. He was also asked why some want to put troops into Darfur to stop genocide but not leave troops in Iraq to prevent genocide. Let's assume that Iraq is a losing cause and we're going to fail miserably. What does that future hold?
  13. This article really does point out the evil we are fighting - they will sabatoge the water systems killing kids to gain power.
  14. Similiarly, if my mulch bin starts to rot and spreads unpleasant odors throughout my neighborhood, I may be subject to a nuisance action in court or a complaint before my homeowner's association.
  15. I don't think you can know which crimes are hate related. Questions of intent are hard for juries, let alone for newspapers. The national review article was making the larger point that most of the violence is black on black yet very few newspapers report the monthly/annual statistics that most murder victims are black.
  16. Yes, that is in the link I provided in the OP. I was supplementing that possibility with another. Both arguments are a bit weak, however, given the sensational nature of this crime. Sensational crimes usually create sensational news. As Pangloss says, however, it really doesn't matter what the cause is if the result is the underreporting of an important social problem.
  17. There was a day when smoking was omnipresent. You couldn't go anywhere without coming back home with the foul stench of tobbacy on your clothes.
  18. Let me give some examples to make the point. Driving is necessary and benefits society so we put up with pollution and risk of death. However, there is no benefit to society to allow people to drive drunk. The driver may get pleasure from this and he may even pose more of a risk to himself than other people as he may crash into inanimate objects. Contrast this to talking on a cell phone while driving. We grumble about this because it can create a similar risk to being drunk; however, we've not outlawed this practice yet because there is social utility to letting people use this otherwise wasted time to make connections. Texting while driving is a similiar example where there is a balancing we do as a society to see if the risk is justified by the benefit. Smoking has no benefit to society, only possible pleasure to the user. Therefore, I see no reason to accept any risk of incidental injury to those who choose not to smoke.
  19. Ludicrous? Ahem. Tsk tsk. Tut tut. Anyway, driving is a function that has social utility and is necessary. So let me refine my statement to say that if someone wants to engage in a potentially deadly activity with zero social utility, I say go ahead so long as there is zero chance that it can harm other people. If you disagree that the burden of proof should be 100%, what burden of proof would you apply? Surely you would not say it is on the non-smoker to prove that second hand smoke is deadly? Interestingly, you bypass my second point which would make this a moot debate.
  20. My google has the snopes gadget pop up on my home page and this horrific story turned out to be true. It's floating around the internet as an example of media bias in that the story was not picked up by the larger outlets. A national review author put it this way: I think there is another explanation for the failure for this story to make national news. There was a time when reporting of black on white crime, or alleged crimes, caused lynching and riots and newspapers still step gingerly for this reason. I agree with the national review author that newspapers should publish statistics showing the victims race when they report monthly or yearly homocide victims. As he writes, "only when the true magnitude of this problem is acknowledged can its solutions be identified and implemented."
  21. 1. Smoking is deadly but people should have the right to engage in deadly activities so long as the there is zero chance that any of the risk is passed on to other people. If it is difficult to prove the negative too bad, keep your smoke to yourself and away from me and my family. 2. Independent of the science, there should be no right to waft noxious vapors towards other people in public spaces. However, a restaurant, for example, should have the right to declare itself a strictly smoking restaurant or, if feasible, a sealed portion thereof. 3. Smokers are not inferior people. We all have our vices. 4. Tobacco litigation is an assault on individual responsibility. It says a lot about the change in our society that tobacco companies went from never losing to always losing in such a short time period. This is not a good trend.
  22. What is kind of funny is that everyone seems to be in general agreement here but I've not heard anyone write the worst words as examples. I think there should be some taboo against using certain words in certain places.
  23. I'm a bit confused as well. John Kerry had a plan that was going to win the war but I guess he didn't share it with the rest of the democrats. Too bad, really.
  24. It comes down to burden of proof. My attitude on global warming, for example, is that given the consequnces of being wrong we should err on the side of having a low carbon footprint where possible. I couldn't hope to analyze all of the studies and consensus can be wrong; nonetheless, the basic idea that we shouldn't muck around with the constituents of the atmosphere in any material way is common sense. This basic idea must bow to some extent to practicalities. In much the same way, I try to avoid breathing fumes from burning substances even where I'm not really familiar with the science involved. Suppose I'm a official in charge of giving out permits for use of a public park. A group applies for a permit to burn a 10' tall stack of old computers which would send clouds of smoke of an indeterminate character up the nostrils of the other users of the park. Should I be required to have iron clad scientific evidence before I say this is a bad idea and refuse the permit?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.