It's interesting you cite Mill, who is probably best known for a different quote:
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. '
Here's a few quotes everybody, you can google them to get the authors:
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."
"A pint of sweat, saves a gallon of blood."
"Experience teaches us that it is much easier to prevent an enemy from posting themselves than it is to dislodge them after they have got possession."
"If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking."
"If we take the generally accepted definition of bravery as a quality which knows no fear, I have never seen a brave man. All men are frightened. The more intelligent they are, the more they are frightened."
I know that quote quite well, TD - and agree with it . Note the quotes above do not lambast war. They lambast violence. I am not suggesting you can have war without violence; of course the reverse is not true.
I am suggesting that boys, not men, mistake violence for war.
The Bailey quote is absurd - hungry people don't engage in violence...they're too busy trying to find food. It is the well fed but discontent who make violence...witness the well-educated terrorists in contrast to the subsistence farmers of the third world we fear not at all.
It is the well fed but discontent who make violence...witness the well-educated terrorists in contrast to the subsistence farmers of the third world we fear not at all.
Also look at the genocide in Mogadishu (as popularized in Black Hawk Down). The militia was well fed and had all the power.
Didn't stop them from murdering anyone they wanted.
Starving people don't have guns. If they did, they wouldn't be starving.
War without violence, Sun Tsu Ping Fa:
For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.
I'm really curious as to where and how and so on you fit the routine and ritual genital mutilation of male children into your views on violence and war and the confusion between them that you perceive in others.
Please do enlighten us. Inquiring minds want to know!
well, routine mutilation of children's genitals is a bad thing, so I'm against that. I also like puppies and don't like Evil. And Flags, flags are good. Our flags, I mean. Not their flags.
Okay, so you're against subjecting children of both genders to prepucectomy without a direct medical health necessity, because that's bad. Got it.
However -- just to be explicitly clear here, because you left this part out -- you're not against subjecting children to genital mutilation in a ritual context -- prepucectomy, piercings, penectomies, labiectomies, clitorectomies, whatever -- because that's not bad (presumably as a result of the religious aspect)?
Now, if this standard semantic unpacking according to the proper meanings of the terms involved isn't an accurate representation of your views, please do let me know. I really dislike misrepresentations.
Also, I'm not getting how that is supposed to fit into your views on the confusion between war and violence that you perceive in others. Could you please provide more detail?
Thank you very much though for finally getting around to starting to address this topic. I look forward with great anticipation to learning much more about your views on the matter!
Guys, may I ask you to pose a more specific question?
Because without that I really have no idea what to begin to explain and would just be flailing around at random, and I'd really rather not do that. I get annoyed at the wastefulness and inefficiency.
Male Circumcision is the topic that has rather suddenly popped up (giggle).
I had no idea it was such a scourge on humanity, or that I was the victim of some sort of debilitation mutilation.
I wonder if I can use this newfound victim status to my advantage? We, the mutilated, should get together and petition for redress, apologies, and money.
Lots of money.
For a while there, I was afraid the world was running low on victim groups.
Hopefully there's a way to prove one has this affliction that does not involve, well, anything embarassing.
Ack, I am against everything that is bad, even if I dont explicitly say so. Since I have a real life, I am not going to try and unpack your bizarre post and address all the various permutations of your obsession with children's genitals. Suffice to say, mutilation is bad. I think that statement covers enough bases for me. You may decide to accuse me of supporting some other kind of mutilation which I havent specifically referred to and which may not (in a purely pedantic, nitpicky sense) be covered under my broad statement in bold above, but that would be because you're insane, not because I actually support whatever the heck it is you're on about now.
I knew it was a mistake replying to your comment and it wont happen again.
I'm really curious as to where and how and so on you fit the routine and ritual genital mutilation of male children into your views on violence and war
No problem:
I will War violently to enter my male children in to the bris of Avraham Avinu through circumcision. So advocate what you will, just make sure you are willing to die for it.
I need to clarify that I intend no violence nor war at the present time, as sanity on the issue is widespread enough to render nonthreatening the rantings of fringe radicals.
But it is wise to be aware that democracy can push just too far, as self defense rights advocates have been saying for years.
Against the bad is one thing. I'm all for that, that's for sure, and it is something most everyone can muster round.
And most everyone will, with their words, and their quotes.
The real question is though, I suspect, "what will a man really risk for the good?"
The difference between the achievement of good, and the achievement of evil, in this world at least, has always been and will always likely be, not what is said, not what is thought, not what is theorized, not what is philosophized, not what is intellectualized, not what is dreamed, not what is discusses in coffee houses or internet cafes, but what is actually done in the real world by real men.
Without the risk of real action the Good is the Ghost of the Dead.
Or the ghost of those soon to be.
When they are not demonizing me and other anti-Islamists, or portraying false exaggerated associations, Islamists prefer to just run and hide from open respectful debate about the issue of Islamism. Islamists would rather continue wallowing in denial. They prefer to project responsibility for terrorism upon everyone else in the world, rather than placing the responsibility upon the ideology of political Islam and the toxicity of the dreams of an Islamic state. They would much rather debate non-Muslims or former Muslims, because they can change the debate focus to Islamophobia, rather than the central issue of Islamism."
The fault is not with the democracies, the "Islamophobes", the Israelis, "violence", the men or the boys. The fault is with ourselves. We let the Islamists, their Saudi supporters and their terrorist infrastructure intimidate us. We pretend they're powerful, but they're only as powerful as we allow them to be.
They don't make the rules of war. If they want to fight with smoke, mirrors and the frightwig of terrorism, let them. We can and should respond with as much force as we please. We're not their underlings, and we should stop pretending that we are.
I will War violently to enter my male children in to the bris of Avraham Avinu through circumcision. So advocate what you will, just make sure you are willing to die for it.
Thank you for stating your position. Just to be clear, though -- I didn't have you in mind when I asked, since (A) I didn't perceive any potential glaring contradictions arising between that issue and the immediately relevant comments on violence, and (B) more generally, you, unlike AP, have yet to exceed -- actually, even just lap against -- my limits of patience for asshat douchebaggery.
I'll happily engage you in debate over the topic any time you like, but I'm not looking for a fight about it with you as I prefer to address intactivism with a R-strategy rather than an K-strategy. I mean, you've made it clear that you're not someone I should consider a hot prospect for conversion to righteousness on the matter.
Now, y'see, AP, that's there's a classic example of why people 'round here don't much respect you. I very politely ask you to clarify your sloppy response so that I can avoid grossly misrepresenting your views in the future, and you get all princess-pissy Ad Hominem attention whore with me for it.
Because without that I really have no idea what to begin to explain and would just be flailing around at random, and I'd really rather not do that.
Actually, Acksiom, since you seem to bring up genital mutilation completely out of the blue every time Aziz posts -- and occasionally on other topics as well -- flailing around at random is exactly what this looks like.
Aziz answered your question:
Suffice to say, mutilation is bad. I think that statement covers enough bases for me.
He also pointed out that you seem unwilling to believe him, for reasons that are quite unclear.
You're opposed to circumcision. We get that. We figured it out months ago. What does that have to do with Aziz's post?
"Power and violence are opposites; where the one rules absolutely, the other is absent. Violence appears where power is in jeopardy, but left to its own course it ends in power's disappearance." -- Arendt, Hannah
Fuzzy-headed idealism. Violence and power are two independent phenomenon. They are not opposites in any sense. There are powerful, violent people; there are powerless, violent people; there are powerful, peaceful people; and there are powerless, peaceful people.
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." -- Asimov, Isaac
"Because only an incompetent waits until it's the last refuge." -- Pournelle, Jerry
"Democracy substitutes self-restraint for external restraint. It is more difficult to maintain than to achieve." -- Brandeis, Louis D.
And yet we continue to maintain it. Imperfectly at times, but we do.
""My country, right or wrong," is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except a desperate case. It is like saying, "My mother, drunk or sober."" -- Chesterton, Gilbert K.
Then it's a good thing no one's saying it.
"Hungry people cannot be good at learning or producing anything, except perhaps violence." -- Bailey, Pearl
Another fuzzy-headed idealist. Hunger is a great motivator. Whether it motivates one to learning or to violence depends on many factors. Historically, it has done both.
"Violence does even justice unjustly." -- Carlyle, Thomas
But sometimes non-violence does no justice at all.
"These violent delights have violent ends." -- Shakespeare, William
Sure. Anyone who delights in violence is prone to trouble. But who's doing that? You can abhor violence and still see it as a necessary tool against those who do delight in it.
"If you want peace, work for justice." -- Pope Paul VI
While I respected the late Pontiff, this is the sort of moral equivalence thinking that led some to excuse bin Laden's atrocities. The idea that all violence stems from injustice is, again, fuzzy-headed idealism. Some people are just prone to violence as a means to advance their interests; and sometimes those interests have not one thing to do with justice.
All I have to add is, let us not mistake the boasts of boys for the wisdom of men.
Can you please clarify your views on war and circumcision as they relate to Chewbacca? You seem to have a point. But then... there is still Chewbacca. It just does not make sense. And I cannot continue this conversation as such.
I have no meaningful views on Chewbacca at all. Is there some Wookie controversy about which I am ignorant and should be informed? I await your Star Wars ultra-geekiness with bated breath. Oh, do not disappoint me, I pray you; your Dynamite Magazine Star Wars sticker collection: let you show them to me.
Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, [approaches and softens] does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests. (see here for more Enlightenment)
12.18.2007 12:01pm
Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
'
Here's a few quotes everybody, you can google them to get the authors:
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."
"A pint of sweat, saves a gallon of blood."
"Experience teaches us that it is much easier to prevent an enemy from posting themselves than it is to dislodge them after they have got possession."
"If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking."
"If we take the generally accepted definition of bravery as a quality which knows no fear, I have never seen a brave man. All men are frightened. The more intelligent they are, the more they are frightened."
I am suggesting that boys, not men, mistake violence for war.
Also look at the genocide in Mogadishu (as popularized in Black Hawk Down). The militia was well fed and had all the power.
Didn't stop them from murdering anyone they wanted.
Starving people don't have guns. If they did, they wouldn't be starving.
For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.
Please do enlighten us. Inquiring minds want to know!
However -- just to be explicitly clear here, because you left this part out -- you're not against subjecting children to genital mutilation in a ritual context -- prepucectomy, piercings, penectomies, labiectomies, clitorectomies, whatever -- because that's not bad (presumably as a result of the religious aspect)?
Now, if this standard semantic unpacking according to the proper meanings of the terms involved isn't an accurate representation of your views, please do let me know. I really dislike misrepresentations.
Also, I'm not getting how that is supposed to fit into your views on the confusion between war and violence that you perceive in others. Could you please provide more detail?
Thank you very much though for finally getting around to starting to address this topic. I look forward with great anticipation to learning much more about your views on the matter!
Because without that I really have no idea what to begin to explain and would just be flailing around at random, and I'd really rather not do that. I get annoyed at the wastefulness and inefficiency.
I had no idea it was such a scourge on humanity, or that I was the victim of some sort of debilitation mutilation.
I wonder if I can use this newfound victim status to my advantage? We, the mutilated, should get together and petition for redress, apologies, and money.
Lots of money.
For a while there, I was afraid the world was running low on victim groups.
Hopefully there's a way to prove one has this affliction that does not involve, well, anything embarassing.
I knew it was a mistake replying to your comment and it wont happen again.
No problem:
I will War violently to enter my male children in to the bris of Avraham Avinu through circumcision. So advocate what you will, just make sure you are willing to die for it.
But it is wise to be aware that democracy can push just too far, as self defense rights advocates have been saying for years.
And most everyone will, with their words, and their quotes.
The real question is though, I suspect, "what will a man really risk for the good?"
The difference between the achievement of good, and the achievement of evil, in this world at least, has always been and will always likely be, not what is said, not what is thought, not what is theorized, not what is philosophized, not what is intellectualized, not what is dreamed, not what is discusses in coffee houses or internet cafes, but what is actually done in the real world by real men.
Without the risk of real action the Good is the Ghost of the Dead.
Or the ghost of those soon to be.
But in ourselves, that we are underlings."
Or, as Muslim anti-Islamist M. Zuhdi Jasser says:
When they are not demonizing me and other anti-Islamists, or portraying false exaggerated associations, Islamists prefer to just run and hide from open respectful debate about the issue of Islamism. Islamists would rather continue wallowing in denial. They prefer to project responsibility for terrorism upon everyone else in the world, rather than placing the responsibility upon the ideology of political Islam and the toxicity of the dreams of an Islamic state. They would much rather debate non-Muslims or former Muslims, because they can change the debate focus to Islamophobia, rather than the central issue of Islamism."
The fault is not with the democracies, the "Islamophobes", the Israelis, "violence", the men or the boys. The fault is with ourselves. We let the Islamists, their Saudi supporters and their terrorist infrastructure intimidate us. We pretend they're powerful, but they're only as powerful as we allow them to be.
They don't make the rules of war. If they want to fight with smoke, mirrors and the frightwig of terrorism, let them. We can and should respond with as much force as we please. We're not their underlings, and we should stop pretending that we are.
Worse yet is the routine and ritual mutilation of children with cancer.
Worst of all, Aziz is studying to perform mutilation of people.
For shame, sir.
Thank you for stating your position. Just to be clear, though -- I didn't have you in mind when I asked, since (A) I didn't perceive any potential glaring contradictions arising between that issue and the immediately relevant comments on violence, and (B) more generally, you, unlike AP, have yet to exceed -- actually, even just lap against -- my limits of patience for asshat douchebaggery.
I'll happily engage you in debate over the topic any time you like, but I'm not looking for a fight about it with you as I prefer to address intactivism with a R-strategy rather than an K-strategy. I mean, you've made it clear that you're not someone I should consider a hot prospect for conversion to righteousness on the matter.
Actually, Acksiom, since you seem to bring up genital mutilation completely out of the blue every time Aziz posts -- and occasionally on other topics as well -- flailing around at random is exactly what this looks like.
Aziz answered your question:
He also pointed out that you seem unwilling to believe him, for reasons that are quite unclear.
You're opposed to circumcision. We get that. We figured it out months ago. What does that have to do with Aziz's post?
Fuzzy-headed idealism. Violence and power are two independent phenomenon. They are not opposites in any sense. There are powerful, violent people; there are powerless, violent people; there are powerful, peaceful people; and there are powerless, peaceful people.
"Because only an incompetent waits until it's the last refuge." -- Pournelle, Jerry
And yet we continue to maintain it. Imperfectly at times, but we do.
Then it's a good thing no one's saying it.
Another fuzzy-headed idealist. Hunger is a great motivator. Whether it motivates one to learning or to violence depends on many factors. Historically, it has done both.
But sometimes non-violence does no justice at all.
Sure. Anyone who delights in violence is prone to trouble. But who's doing that? You can abhor violence and still see it as a necessary tool against those who do delight in it.
While I respected the late Pontiff, this is the sort of moral equivalence thinking that led some to excuse bin Laden's atrocities. The idea that all violence stems from injustice is, again, fuzzy-headed idealism. Some people are just prone to violence as a means to advance their interests; and sometimes those interests have not one thing to do with justice.
And let us not mistake quotations for reasoning.
Exactly!
Can you please clarify your views on war and circumcision as they relate to Chewbacca? You seem to have a point. But then... there is still Chewbacca. It just does not make sense. And I cannot continue this conversation as such.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.