|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Nov 27th, 2006 07:05 PM | ||
| Courage the Cowardly Dog |
Well Iranian president doesn't seem to keen on the upcoming confrence. he said predicting the downfall of the US and asking for more fighters to drive us out. (despite the fact if they sent peacekeeping troops instead of rebels we COULD leave QUICKER!) __________________________________________________ Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad predicted the collapse of Israel, the U.S. and Britain, attacking what he called their ``oppressive behavior.'' ``The Zionist regime is on a steep downhill towards collapse and disgrace,'' Ahmandinejad told supporters at a rally of Basiji militia forces near Tehran today. In a reference to the U.S. and U.K., he said ``the collapse and crumbling of your devilish rule has started.'' The speech was carried live on state television. Iran doesn't recognize Israel, and Ahmadinejad drew international condemnation after saying in October 2005 that Israel should be ``wiped off the map.'' The U.S. and Iran have had no diplomatic ties since 1980 following the seizure of diplomats at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979. The U.K., which has an embassy in Tehran, is among the three European countries pushing for sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program. The Iranian president also called on neighboring countries to drive out ``foreign occupiers,'' in a reference to U.S.-led forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. ``The people of the region are well able to establish regional security,'' the president said in the speech near the shrine of the Islamic Republic founder Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. ``The presence of foreigners is the source of discord and conflict.'' Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, whose visit to Tehran yesterday was postponed because of the curfew imposed on Baghdad since Nov. 23, will fly to the Iranian capital tomorrow, state television reported separately today. The Iraqi president's trip to Iran is aimed at ``expanding bilateral ties in business, trade and transport affairs,'' the report said. Iraq security will not be the main issue discussed in this meeting, the Iranian Foreign Ministry's press office said on Nov. 21. source: Bloomberg.com |
|
| Nov 17th, 2006 01:10 PM | ||
| kahljorn | it's not as if I was quoting the unobjective, capitalist hating portion of the manifesto. | |
| Nov 17th, 2006 12:34 PM | ||
| Preechr | Yeah, I thought Syriana was a pretty good movie, too, but it WAS just a movie... | |
| Nov 17th, 2006 11:02 AM | ||
| derrida |
Quote:
Globalization does bring the possibility of international unions, which I could see as potentially destabilizing some private institutions. As for the increase in inter-national friction as a cause of change (as may be represented by the WOT), it first must mutate into an ideology not governed by a wahabiist reaction to modernity spurred by elites but rather into a unique and culturally grounded arab socialist project. Possible, though seemingly unlikely. |
|
| Nov 16th, 2006 11:44 AM | ||
| sspadowsky | Pffft. Like anyone needs to. | |
| Nov 16th, 2006 10:24 AM | ||
| Preechr | WELL YOU DON'T HAVE TO CALL HIS ATTENTION TO IT!!! | |
| Nov 16th, 2006 10:22 AM | ||
| sspadowsky | OAO is back. I can't believe he hasn't infected this thread yet. | |
| Nov 16th, 2006 09:20 AM | ||
| mburbank |
I can't take anyone seriously who thinks architects are macho, orgasms are empirical and doesn't know how to spell 'Anne'. And watchout! Alphaboy will soon swoop in and tell your conversation has gone into forbidden areas, and I for one agree. I can only hope this irrelevance storm will drive him to the thread I created for him where I agreed to abide by any rule or deffinition he chose to make. THERE we could have growthful discussion. Not here, that's for damn sure. |
|
| Nov 16th, 2006 07:17 AM | ||
| Preechr |
Quote:
I've read some very good critiques of her work by some that have actually read her work at an early age, and they complained that after having mistaken her fictional world for our real one, they did indeed become assholes for many years. Well, the critics didn't actually accept the mistake they made, instead they chose to blame her for lying to them about the nature of the world. She doesn't advocate that moral people should attack or even notice "looters." She highlights the ultimate ends of two moral paths through life: the moral path that worships life as a man, and the immoral path that claims death is man's highest ideal. It's a very black and white world, and some of her younger readers have a hard time understanding gray. Since gray is what most of what the real world is, there's no way she could cover all that in any number of books... so, she mostly avoids it when portraying the godlike producers, with a couple notable exceptions. That's left for the reader to fill in. Each looter character is a portrayal of one moral flaw writ large. Sane real people aren't like that. |
|
| Nov 16th, 2006 01:33 AM | ||
| kahljorn |
lol everyone I know who reads ayn rand is a stupid prick too, and they were stupid pricks before they read it. i think her work attracts stupid pricks the only thing I read that I thoroughly enjoyed was the ethics of selfishnesswhich was basically a critique on altruistic morality. Ithink her biggest example/claim is using the old IF A MAN WAS DROWNING IN A RIVER WOULD YOU JUMP INTO TO SAVE HIM. Altruists would say yes! But ayn rand takes it a step further and says, WAIT WHAT IF YOU CANT SWIM THEN YOUD DIE. Genius. i dont know about objectivism but it doesn't seem so bad |
|
| Nov 16th, 2006 01:24 AM | ||
| Sethomas | I've never read Ayn Rand, but judging by the Objectivist Club at my old school I'd have to say that I never have any plans to do so. I mean, if I wanted people to think I'm any more of a dick, I'd just start out by ceasing to use my turn signals as religiously as I do and work up to smoking indoors in places that prohibit it. | |
| Nov 15th, 2006 11:56 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
"Well, Communism was pretty much totally against Capitalism, so the Manifesto isn't what you'd call an objective resource. It's also a bit dated... A lot has happened since 1848, y'know. " Well marxist conflict theory is still alive and well today :O I just thought it was interesting that he thought globalization would cause his type of government because people would start to stand up for themselves as society progresses, also through all the global pressure placed on businesses/governments to comply to moral/ethical standards. Sounds like something you'd go for. |
|
| Nov 15th, 2006 07:01 PM | ||
| Preechr |
Well, Communism was pretty much totally against Capitalism, so the Manifesto isn't what you'd call an objective resource. It's also a bit dated... A lot has happened since 1848, y'know. I've never read Peter Singer... There's a lot of mythology surrounding Capitalism and prodution ethos, and a lot of people holding signs at protests they know nothing about. I'm not prejudging anybody. I just recommended a book that covers the bases pretty well in my opinion. You will judge it for yourself, I'm sure. The Pentagon's New Map isn't as much about Globalization as it is about an objective, forward-thinking world based in Globalization. It's where we are, in fact, and there's a pretty cool place to be in fornt of us if we choose to go there. |
|
| Nov 15th, 2006 06:39 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
two books on globalization huh :O what do you think of peter singers One World: the ethics of globalization? Also what did you think of the parts in the communist manifesto in which it claims that deprivitization will occur as a result of Globalization? I felt the parts of the communist manifesto I read were less about a system of government that will save us from our wicked ways but more about how through Globalization deprivitization will occur as a result of "inner-national" friction and conflict. basically that globalization would make us less likely to take shit from others. As if it spells out a natural process of progression that will occur because of globalization regardless of what happens, rather than wanting a change in government. Kind of like a prediction almost. |
|
| Nov 15th, 2006 05:54 PM | ||
| Preechr | haha | |
| Nov 15th, 2006 05:50 PM | ||
| kahljorn | ps i am intellectually lazy kind of. it's mostly because it's more fun and more satisfying to figure things out on my own than it is to read the same thing in ten different books. you know that rush you get when you're "estimating" and guessing and inventing. I like drugs. | |
| Nov 15th, 2006 05:36 PM | ||
| Preechr |
Quote:
http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Wealth-...e=UTF8&s=books !!!!!! Excellent History/Economics book. |
|
| Nov 15th, 2006 05:33 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
Ayn Rand's a cool author but I don't have any of her books just exerpts so you should have my address in your inbox in a second. i don't remember you making that offer, though, I just remember you bringing up Atlas Shrugged because Iwastalking about selfishness or something. I thought fountainhead was also fiction? "You know I really don't know why people think humans are anything more than animals." that was a rhetorical statement by the way Ido know why I just think it's retarded. Usually when I say "I don't know why" it means that I think somebody's making a bad decision. "it's just that what's in there generally has no relation whatsoever to reality. " Thisstrikes me as really odd because the only thing I care about is reality (not even just humanreality just reality). When I talk about humans being animals that's reality, when i say it's our big brain giving us the capacity to be smart it's reality. I mean, we've had so many discussions about this and even what I think is necessary for our Governments and education process if we want to raise "Humans" and not animals. I think most people live in an illusory world where they ignore the cold hard facts in exchange for happy, self-indentifying facts that make them feel better about living. How is what I say "Unrealistic"? I state problems, the nature of the problem, and rarily state an unrealistic solution. I try to state reality  ps actually i rarily read wikipedia and never read linked articles unless I'm interested or something. Usually all of my "Johnny on the spot" with knowledge comes from looking at a word and estimating it's meaning then just ranting. |
|
| Nov 15th, 2006 05:30 PM | ||
| Grislygus | Oh, I was hoping you had some historical reccomendations. I just finished Founding Brothers, so I don't have anything to read at the moment. | |
| Nov 15th, 2006 05:06 PM | ||
| Preechr |
I'm gonna start him on Fountainhead, then Atlas Shrugged, just to get him going. Very easy reads, and very instructional. Then, The Lexus and the Olive Tree for some economic reality, followed by The Pentagon's New Map to build on that and bring him into the post-9/11 world. Nothing particularly right-wing, left-wing or controversial, just realistic, objective and practical. Depending on how he progresses, I might add to that list. If he quits on the first few pages, he'll at least have the books for the day he chooses to pick them back up. He has displayed a wide range in tastes, but no taste for industrious study. Who knows where a little reading might take him? If he shows an interest in science, I'd try some Hawking or maybe Blink if he hasn't already read that far. Anthro- or Sociology: Guns, Germs and Steel is a long one but doable and fun. For religion, I like The Life of Pi even though it's fiction and not very deep. (I'm not a very religious person anymore...) If he decides he likes politics, he'd need a firm grounding in stuff like Bastiat's The Law and some gritty History that, were I to list it, I'd surely be accused of trying to brain-wash the guy... so I won't. Really though, I figure once he gets half way through Fountainhead, he won't let me buy him anything anymore. |
|
| Nov 15th, 2006 04:28 PM | ||
| Grislygus |
Quote:
|
|
| Nov 15th, 2006 04:24 PM | ||
| Preechr |
You are a very weird guy, kahljorn. I totally respect your ability to use logic and form opinions, yet I generally have no respect for your opinions once stated. Please don't take that as an insult. Your ability to be so right and so wrong at the same time amazes me. The world inside your head is brightly lit and everything seems well-connected, it's just that what's in there generally has no relation whatsoever to reality. I keep wanting to sit down and take apart posts of yours such as this one, but then I remember the times I've tried that before. It makes me dizzy. It just does no good. We could discuss stuff for days at a time, and nothing would come of it. You are either one click on the dial away from being Geggy (whom I don't consider stupid, just confused) or a troll that does a great job of keeping threads going. The answers you invent to problems you've invented show how intelligent you are. The problem is, you haven't ever bothered to accumulate any actual WISDOM. If a discussion comes up about a book or a person, you are Johnny on the spot with all the knowledge you've accumulated from a cursory glance at Wikipedia or a quick skim of a linked article, but you won't actually go out and get a freakin BOOK on a topic that interests you and READ IT, preferring instead to ask someone to nutshell whatever it is for you. That's a tremendous waste, in my opinion, of the above average brain in your head. Quit being so intellectually lazy. Stop making up excuses for how you behave. There's no nobility to it at all, no matter how easily you can convince yourself there is. Again, this is not an insult. If I felt you had no chance of progressing past the level you've chosen, I'd just ignore you and move on. You can question my right to say this or the accuracy of my assessment of you, but I'd ask you to first question what it is you are defending and why. If you respected the power of objective reasoning at all, you wouldn't be caught saying things like, "You know I really don't know why people think humans are anything more than animals." I once made you an offer that I'd mail you brand-spanking-new copies of several books I'd love to see you read. That offer is still open. PM me an address, and you will have them in a week. You will re-join reality one day, but doing so is a life-long process. You will thoroughly enjoy it, and it will totally be worth the trouble, and I hope you will do it sooner rather than after you go completely nuts. The world needs people like you to consider themselves more than just animals. What makes you human is that you can THINK. You can REASON. You have options other than instinct and self-gratification. You have no limits other than those you place on yourself. I promise you that I'm not the only person in the world that's noticed the chains that bind you. |
|
| Nov 15th, 2006 02:24 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
I like this thread :O "I can attempt to understand the twisted logic that wound up with terrorists choosing the life they have, but I don't have to agree with it and I certainly don't HAVE to catagorize it as human. " You know I really don't know why people think humans are anything more than animals. OH WE HAVE FREEWILL WE CAN CHOOSE THINGS IT'S BEYOND OUR BIOLOGY GOD GAVE US MAGIC POWERS WE HAVE A MORAL COMPASS. Nature-nurture is too stupid. ANIMALS DONT HAVE THE POWER TO CHOOSE: I have two objections. First off, if you set two plates of food in front of an animal they're going to "Choose", of course this might not be "Morally motivated" but whatever. Secondly, the thing that makes humans "Better" than animals is our big brains, our big brains make us seem like we have more choices because we have a higher capacity for observation and memorization. It doesn't have anything to do with being morally superior, because the morals we are presented with are still largely decided by the culture we are born into. Morals are really non-existant. In fact if you look at what "Morals" have done for our society since we've begun you'll see they've basically done jack and shit for us, presenting more problems than anything. For example, morals go against the natural way. It's natural for animals to kill animals for their own personal well-being: in human society our protection of life has allowed us to flourish absolutely, however now we are presented with problems like overpopulation because there's too many of us-- and really what is the point of there being so damn many of us, half of us are worthless retards who are just around to barely sustain society. This could probably be called Cultural lag. Morals don't really lead us down the path of "Right", it's just right according to our own selfish desires. If you want to start talking about what it's necessary to become "Human" and shed our animal nature that could be fun, but for the most part it's always going to have to do with the shedding of government, the shedding of morality and the shedding of most other things. Really, you can't have mass "Humanity" instantaneously, and if you did the world would cease functioning as it is. " You just cannot have a socialist government based in the idea that we all get what we want whether or not we have earned it and also, at the same time, have a goevrnment wherein we aren't subject to the whim of those that want from us what we don't think it's fair to give. " Government doesn't really work anyway. We pretend like we have a meritous, fair society but actually those who are in power are usually the least meritous. It's alot easier to sell a house than build a house, for a small example. Or maybe it's alot easier to declare war as president than it actually is to fight in a war and get shot at. I mean really, whether or not you have a socialist Government doesn't really change that basic underlying nature, and for the most part it can't really be avoided. In fact I thought socialism was, eventualy, supposed to address this nature? I mean, part ( a very large part ) of the reason President Bush is a president is because of the family he was born into. How fucking hard is that? Did he fight his way into that womb? Sperm battles aside, he has done very little to "Earn" his position, and yet he takes plenty away that many people don't feel is fair to give. |
|
| Nov 15th, 2006 02:08 PM | ||
| mburbank | That has only the teeniest bit to do with anything I just wrote, and you wouldn't have even needed to read it to make a response. Why would I answer your question when you totaly ignored all the questions I just asked you? If you want to talk to yourself, you don't need to type. | |
| Nov 15th, 2006 01:32 PM | ||
| Abcdxxxx |
Well you responded...so I guess that would mean you disagree with me?!! Seemed more like you're preoccupied with disliking me. They're not one in the same. If people were tarring and feathering minorities down South, would you evoke 60 years of world events involving their homeland? Or does your psuedo-liberalism even extend past self hate? |
|
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | ||
