Recent posts by karmakoolkid on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Interview being pulled from theaters

I can’t help but wonder why the fictitious person disclaimer wasn’t used:

“All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.”

In the movies:
They basically dance around the truth.
They really don’t have to use any relevant facts.
They can make up a country.
They can make up names for the real life players.
They can even make up the time-line (future/past) to tell most age-old stories about humans. Hell, they even do it via cartoons, etc.

Do they really have to make the players even look like, speak like the real characters in order to strongly indicate who/what/where/why/when they are being portrayed?

This leaves those ppl—who are so stupid as to yell that they are being represented by the film, etc.—as being viewed as paranoid (or proud) because they are assumptively falling victim to the ol’: if the shoe fits, wear it.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

Originally posted by wargamer1000:

This is the problem with your analogy. Nothing picked the person up and took them to an interrogation room.

Pardon me, I merely said that he was arrested. But if he was arrested something must have arrested him or picked him.

Then, on the other hand:
“The analogy rather should be comparable to this: Suppose person A was placed at an interrogation room, in the room there is a one-way mirror such that the police chief sees person A from outside the room however person A sees only a reflection of himself. The police chief judges person A so, but person A does not necessarily know why he was arrested and placed into interrogation.”

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Interview being pulled from theaters

Yeah, Frosty…that is why I always say to “follow the money”.
For those who aren’t crazy, THAT is where the real politics reside.
Sadly, tho, like many dictatorial govts., N.K.’s is a bit crazy;
and, could possibly end up getting a lot of innocent ppl very “hurt”.

Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / And....

Now, please tell us the same.
Or, at the very least, STOP making these ridiculous threads.
Please delete it so it doesn’t have to be locked.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Interview being pulled from theaters

Originally posted by yeasy:

Cold War II?

We may be either very close to it w/ N. Korea; or, could already be in it depending upon how one wants to view a cold war … considering the huge disparity of capabilities between N. Korea & us. The U.S. & Russia were evenly matched (MAD).

N. Korea is like the asshole drunk that crashes the party and is allowed to stay because he isn’t being to disruptive….YET. One debates whether they should toss the bugger and risk a donnybrook in the house or have him come back and do a “drive-by”; or, just accept his behavior as the price one pays for having the party.

One thing is for sure (re thread & movie), it’s not at all wise to start making fun of the idiot when you already know it is very likely he already is carrying a gun. From the link, an assessment by former Pentagon strategic analyst Mark Schneider:

“The North Korean regime is one of the most fanatic, paranoid, and militaristic dictatorships on the planet. … While North Korea has long made occasional nuclear attack threats, the scope, magnitude, and frequency of these threats have vastly increased in 2013.”

We shouldn’t forget that China just might be helping Korea under the table.
China has little to lose in the way of trade w/ the U.S.; China would see a takeover as just a changing of landlords. I’m sure China believes she could do a much better job of managing the consumers.

China could be using Korea as a patsy to find out just what resolve the U.S. has in responding to military threats. But, these experts disagree with me. One of them says:

“Currently we see a gradual deterioration of Sino-DPRK relations, largely initiated by the North Korean side. The new Chinese administration does not like the North Korean regime, and sends clear, if muted, signals about this attitude. For China, North Korea is a trouble-maker whose adventurism occasionally puts China’s long-term interests at risk and whose disregard for the Chinese warnings is remarkable.”

“Such feelings are reciprocated by the North Korean side: they see China is a hegemonic power, potentially capable of intervening in North Korean domestic politics. They also worry about the scale of the leverage China has potentially acquired by nearly monopolizing North Korea’s foreign trade. This mutual suspicion and dislike have intensified recently, driven by the personalities of the nations’ leaders.”

Even if China isn’t to happy w/ North Korea being at the party, Russia just might view NK as having something worthy of being befriended.

The U.S. should remember that China & Russia are a huge part of BRICS.

I’d like to think the U.S. has its shit together much more than to not know this kind of film was being made and to not have taken a lot more preemptive approach. Then again, just maybe this kind of sword-rattling is precisely what the U.S. wants.

Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

I wondered what happened to ya, McAlty.
Ya’ve been gone so short a time that it wasn’t long enough.

Eh, I don’t think he’s actually Vanguarde, he seems to have been around too long and hasn’t really been trying to get a rise out of people, just saying some things that a more moderate Vanguarde alt might.

Yeah, but Vannie says he’s been around since ’08; and, he likely has various personalities he can trot out as the need calls for … hence the more moderate Vanguarde.
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Obama & Cuba

I wonder if should the U.S. not become a whole lot friendlier w/ Cuba, Russia might not begin to reestablish relations w/ her? I’m not talking to the level of tactical missiles being located there; just as political hay that shows how fucked we are that we can’t get along w/ our very close neighbors.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Interview being pulled from theaters

Having the right to say doesn’t doesn’t make it always WISE to do so.

Common sense

I wondered what happened to ya, McAlty.
Ya’ve been gone so short a time that it wasn’t long enough.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

Originally posted by jhco50:

I have seen this thread go on and on and it is such a stupid thread.

Thanks for your input.
I’m sure it is invaluable to most of those who have contributed to the 141 pages thus far.
The very fact that, even w/o a read of it just might be a hint that they have a different opinion than you….eh?

Who cares if one believes in God or doesn’t?
Who cares if XXXXXX?
Well….I’m gonna say that typically SOMEONE does care about things that are up for discussion.
And, something like religion is usually very worthy of discussion.

Who cares about “conservatism”?
Well….YOU do.
Isn’t that why you are on this thread … to “educate” the youngsters on the evils of liberalism/progressivism?

It is a personal choice each person makes and is really not anyone elses business.
This I can agree w/ ya … for the most part.

Where the discussion value really heightens is when someone is trying t make your business theirs.

If you choose to be an atheist, fine, keep it to yourself. Same goes for Christians. This is one of those subjects you don’t bring into discussion unless you are two peas short of a pod.

Yet, YOU quite easily bring YOUR opinions on Gays & abortion into discussion on SD.
Believe me, they are far from being any form of pea in this pod.

Tell me where the harm is in agreeing to discuss religion in an adult manner.
After all, isn’t this what Jesus did?
Isn’t this why a huge amount of ppl the world over attend religious services of DIFFERING natures?

As LoneLucas points out, ppl bring God into a discussion when they blurt out the ubiquitous oh MY God. What are they doing, bringing their “Big Guy” as some form of validity for their opinion they are about to express?

Why do YOU feel such a need to make a comment on this thread?
Aren’t YOU actually doing the very thing ya are calling stupid?

How arrogant it is for someone, who has already come to some form of understanding for them self, to assume no one (esp. those much younger) else has?

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Obama & Cuba

Hmmmmm…..we’ll export to them; but we won’t let them export to them, except when we buy their products via proxy.

Per usual, there likely is a lot more involved in this that meets the average American’s eyes. One simply DOES NOT want to believe everything they read in the press/online or see on TV. It MIGHT be the truth; but, is it the WHOLE truth? Probably not.

For the longest time, American capitalism took advantage of Cuba’s 3rd world plight.
Why do ya think Castro & Che revolted?
We used the nation as our bawdy Disneyland for Adults.

From the link: “Travel back to the Cuba of the 1950s, to the capital city of Havana. You’d find a bustling playground for rich Americans, complete with all of the narcotics, prostitution, and gambling of modern day Vegas. (see this depicted very accurately in The Godfather Part 2) While this spelled fortune for some Cubans, most were still struggling in poverty and becoming more and more distrustful of a corrupt government led by an unelected dictator named Fulgencio Batista”.

There seems to be bipartisan feelings on the issue….both pro & con.

A very interesting & revealing look at Cuba via this timeline presentation shows the arrogance of the U.S. and how that translates into our being little more than bullies.

When Castro’s revolution succeeded in 1951, we stopped letting our soldiers stationed at Guantanamo Bay from “having fun” in Cuba … no America personnel allowed into Cuba. Yet, we had no problem at all allowing Cuban low-skill help to come into the base and clean our toilets, make our meals, etc. We had no problem killing these ppl and the Cuban guards IN Cuba at the gate (have seen it w/ my own eyes) these workers used daily (no Cuban could stay overnight) to come into the camp.

This link gives some additional info on Gitmo and has some pictures showing why we considered it to be the “asshole of Cuba”, partially because of its physical location at the “bottom” of Cuba, but mostly because of the arid land (not tropical paradise).

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

Originally posted by TheBSG (undefined):

Not believing in something because it doesn’t benefit you is as dumb as believing in something simply because you believe it does.

But…but, BSG, isn’t this the downfall of sooooo many “disinformed” people? 0¿~
They will cling to their faith that a belief ultimately DOES benefit them.
They do so even to the extent of making us excuses for the failures of the thing in which they believe: It’s God’s Will.

So, I agree, for a person to conduct their life strongly based on such a belief system does seem to be a tad bit dumb.

Originally posted by vikaTae (undefined):
Originally posted by FrostyGhosts (undefined):

I’m done with god… He… Pfffffffffff

Minor quibble: That’s not athiesm. You still believe he exists, you just don’t like him any more.

Nah, I think Frosty just might have such a shallow belief in such things as to be able to easily wade out of anything that begins to make waves that might splash over his toes.

Ya know, like a lot of ppl are when it comes to marriage/relationshipts, jobs, a restaurant, most anything that requires commitment in order for it to survive.

Originally posted by FrostyGhosts (undefined):

God does not exist. Let’s have an Pro-Contra argument about God’s existence, shall we?

Well, at least ya stumbled into the right thread.
However, since there is NO proof at all that “God” exists (depending upon what “exists” means), all that any argument we have is going to just be a spewing of the same shit that has been flung about for as long as man began wondering “WHAT?”
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / if ...

Originally posted by FrostyGhosts (undefined):

No no no… It’s not like that….

Are you 100% sure?
Is it possible that you are just kidding yourself?

If i go, she is very upset…
Yeah, she might be upset that you just can’t take a hint.
She might be upset because your being there means she can’t be w/ her REAL boyfriend;
that you might run into somebody that will tell you the truth.
She remembers everything about me…
This proves….WHAT?
She tells me anything about her… I talk to her free…
YOU may talk to her freely, openly, and honestly;
but, this doesn’t mean she is reciprocating.
I even talk with her friends !
HER friends.
What is difficult to understand that they would very likely LIE for her?

Suck it up man;
it’s over;
she doesn’t want you;
move on;
find a gal where you live.
The distance is the problem.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Should intelligent animals be given more rights?????????

Donchya know that if you tried to eat your own flesh, your teeth wouldn’t be able to chew, you couldn’t swallow, you’d stop breathing?

That is because it would be, like, like incest-cannibalism.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / if ...

Have you considered the possibility that she has merely dumped ya?
Do you have any way at all of knowing the truth of the matter?
It sounds a lot like the things you say she has told you is nothing more than a Dear John letter.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / I will attempt to explain the Fails in the monetary system

Originally posted by petesahooligan:
Warren in 2016

Karmakoolkid is my new (asshole) best friend.

Pete, I do appreciate the sentiment and it does remind me that the huge majority of ppl have much more in common than not. While you & I obviously differ in some areas—that when looked at exclusively—are significant, we realistically DO HAVE a tremendously greater consensus in the balance of our ideologies.

This is something I try to keep focus on when engaging others who have a point of contention w/ me. This overview of how differences are but a minor part of life is something I try to help them see AND understand as thoroughly as possible.

Some, like jhco, just can’t get past their pet biases against those ppl who are much more like him than he is willing to admit… and he class) is rapidly becoming like the “poverty” class he so detests. The (very dangerous to their way of life) common enemy for both of them are the corporists.

I have a (one-way) friend who says it well: We are all in this together.
When ppl give me the usual “have a nice day”, I respond with: you do so, too … we’re in this together. Sometimes I’ll add: I just wish more ppl would act like it.

Maybe Red Green got his inspiration for his motto from this

Pete, this one is what I view as being your work and passion.
““I define connection as the energy that exists between people when they feel seen, heard, and valued; when they can give and receive without judgment; and when they derive sustenance and strength from the relationship.” "

More on Warren and why she NEEDS to run in 2016.
““The game is rigged, and the rich and powerful have lobbyists and lawyers and plenty of friends in Congress. We can whine about it, we can whimper about it, or we can fight back. I’m fighting back!”
—Elizabeth Warren”

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Serious Nonsense

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

A neighbor opposed to public park improvements because they are afraid of change. Stands for Not In My Back Yard.

It doesn’t have to be something of a great asset like a park that would likely be used by only a part of the neighborhood it is in. NO, it can be something like a (phone) cell tower that nearly 100% of that neighborhood uses and will also use the many towers in other’s neighborhoods.

We had this happen here in Wichita. A small, upscale city-within-the-city, College Hill, adamantly fought a tower for their neighborhood … and won.

College Hill fought a proposed Walmart being located next to it; BUT, across a very wide freeway where the frontage is all light commercial including a used auto sales lot. It was the idea that a tacky Walmart (video warms up at :45) dared to be even near its backyard. College Hill won this battle, too.

Money doesn’t talk….it fucking SCREAMS.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / I will attempt to explain the Fails in the monetary system

Since this thread isn’t functioning much at all, I’m going to take it a direction that is related and a whole lot more relative to our economic woes of today and the whys this is.

Wall Street Bankers
“But in the new financial world order, Wall Street greed is about just that—Wall Street’s interests. “The problem on Wall Street today is greed is no longer working for everyone else because the interest of Wall Street is separated from the interest of the rest of society,” Santoro said."

“Plus, it’s hard to believe Wall Street has reformed, when five years after Lehman’s bankruptcy filing on Sept. 15, 2008, we still have no major “perp walk.” Not a single senior executive from any Wall Street bank has faced criminal charges from the crisis. The absence of such prosecution has fueled feelings of unfairness."

Please, PLEASE go to the link, read it … esp. the part proceeding from the map (have a look at the map, too). This is the essence of what I’ve been saying about “the rich getting richer”. It talks about who & why this is happening.

This video and its continuance shows ONE person who is a whistle-blower on the Wall Street crooks. I saw ONE because if you will look at the first 5 seconds of the second link, you will see that NO other (the chairman has to be there) Senators are a part of grilling the bank regulators.

The first link video will show how slimy these govt. regulators (DJSEC) are in that they can’t even understand &/or bring themselves to respond to Warren’s question. AT THE VERY LEAST, go to the very end of the video and hear the every cold issue at the heart of this problem w/ bankers and the regulation of them:
The IRS will squeeze the balls of the average tax payer who has some financial issues;
BUT, there is no serious efforts to go after those who are doing the serious harm in America.

Warren points out in the first video how such litigation can be very expensive.
But, when it comes to banking crimes, it can also be very profitable.
In both the money generated AND in the amount of insight about the malpractices of Wall Street.
We need to know much, much more about them.

The “many eyes” just below include Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
She appears to be the only one in govt. that has an interest.
And, Obama doesn’t seem to have an interest in putting non-corporitst litigators in the Justice Dept. This video is a damn good one.

" Many eyes, meanwhile, are on the Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission. “Wall Street is a high crime area and has been on a crime spree for years,” said Dennis Kelleher, president and CEO of Better Markets, a nonprofit devoted to promoting public interest in the financial markets. “That has been enabled by the double standard of justice where Wall Street’s too-big-to-fail banks and executives have been too-big-to-jail or even prosecute,” Kelleher said in a statement."

More from Warren on how banking regulation DID work in the past and when it stopped working. The Big 4 banks are now 30% bigger than they were in 2008. So much for “too big to fail” being handled.
Okay, so banking talk is boring.
At least watch this video and you’ll understand why I’m adamantly saying: Warren in 2016

We cannot survive a GOP President coupled w/ both House & Senate bleeding the American citizens.
She asks: are YOU ready?
I’m sure she doesn’t mean just electing her;
she means a CONTINUED ACTIVE SUPPORT by these citizens.
Telling their Congressional representatives to do what is right by them.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Torture, Its Legality and its effectiveness,

Originally posted by petesahooligan:
You would also sacrifice yourself in order to save the lives of those you care about. Right?

So you condone suicide bombing?

Again, you are slicing out a very limited specific from the entire pie.
Subjectively, I UNDERSTAND the impetus behind most suicide bombings.
This certainly isn’t to say that I condone them/
Who is being bombed?
Why are they being bombed?
We bomb the fuck outta aggressors all the time.
Hopefully, we have learned to not make them suicide missions.
Originally posted by RollerCROWster:

everyone says torture is justified as long as its against the people they hate.

Let’s go with: merely hating ppl because of an ideology that is hugely different than yours is one thing. Using arguably extreme methods to ensure that their ideology doesn’t put an end to yours is an entirely different matter.
nobody considers that torture could ever be used against them

The hyperbole aside, I think most ppl come to some degree of positive “consideration” that torture might be a viable option were it to be a means to stop torture from continuing to be used against them.

I suppose there are some wars where the aggressors kill only the armed forces of the invaded nation. But, even that is a form of torture to me. It is still a human being w/ his leg(s) blown off, etc.

Torture is hell.
WAR is hell.
Please tell me where one ends and the other begins.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Insightful Quotes

Originally posted by RollerCROWster:

tl;dr version of this thread:


And, your “problem” with this….is?
Or, are YOU merely trying to show us how smart you are by believing you have been able to sum up 3 pages of posting into a snazzy quip?
Originally posted by petesahooligan:

“From pacifist to terrorist, each person condemns violence – and then adds one cherished case in which it may be justified.”
—Gloria Steinem

Depending on when Gloria said this, I think she is either very naïve or isn’t stating her point very well.

Terrorists DO NOT condemn violence; it is their trademark….their favorite tool.
They don’t have to “add one cherished case”; their entire program is based on justification of using any means at all for terrorizing.

“Nothing will end war unless the people themselves refuse to go to war.”
—Albert Einstein

Totally agree w/ this.
Except the obvious caveat of: the war will end BECAUSE the ppl of one side refused to go to war and ended up all being killed….A war ended.

There are a host of things that “cause” wars.
There are a host of things that can be done to eliminate wars.
Until the common sense in that is actualized, we will have wars and civil violence and personal conflicts.

“The pacifist is as surely a traitor to his country and to humanity as is the most brutal wrongdoer.”
—Theodore Roosevelt

Haven’t you just given the antithesis to your own position?

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Torture, Its Legality and its effectiveness,

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

Until someone shows me that the former is true, I’ll keep an open mind about the latter.

Under what circumstances would it be okay for you to be tortured, Karma? If you can justify it in others, certainly you can justify it for yourself.

Under what circumstances do you think it’s okay to torture American soldiers as a “last resort?” Let’s hear it.

I can say it AGAIN;
but, you will have to do some listening.
If you aren’t able to understand the difference between the criminal aggressor and the legal self-defense, no matter what & how much of it I say will be understood by you.

It isn’t “okay” (whatever THAT is) for me to be tortured.
That is why I intend to do whatever is necessary to prevent it.
AGAIN, I’m not the one initiating the war.

I strongly believe that if I don’t do what and ALL that is necessary to protect my life when it is being SERIOUSLY threatened, then I have less-than-total belief that my life is of more value than the ppl who are trying to take it.

Let me guess. You would also sacrifice yourself in order to save the lives of those you care about. Right?

This is what loving is about for some ppl.
Willing to kill AND DIE for your beliefs.
This is what most all of the soldiers in battle have to believe;
elsewise why would they be there.

Sacrificing ones life for those they care about is pretty much common sense.
Heroes are those who risk/sacrifice their lives for those they don’t even know.

We aren’t the ones who have challenged those of “the other guy”.
They are the ones that have challenged our RIGHT to have & keep ours.

“They started it!”

We don’t indiscriminately kill innocent people, (until we do).

In Iraq, 200,000 people have died to date because 3,000 Americans died. This is not reasonable. It is insanity.
In Afghanistan, more American soldiers have died “preventing violence” than died on September 11th.
How many Afghan civilians have died? You should know this, Karma, if you’re defending it. (Answer: About 21,000)

You are bringing something into this that is only somewhat related to torture.
Yes, killing IS killing.
Those killings aren’t the intention nor goal.
I’ve already included this when I brought up the concept of MACRO-“torture” is the war itself.
That there is collateral damage is just another very, VERY good reason to do as much as one can to end the war.

On race:

We aren’t the ones who have challenged those of “the other guy”.
They are the ones that have challenged our RIGHT to have & keep ours.

Show me some of this reverse racism. I’d love to see it.

Some scholars claim that “racism” requires power.

Nah…ya’ve got things mixed up here.
I didn’t say that at all referencing your comparative point about racism.
Your quote of me comes from something I said well before I commented on the racial issue.

It greatly helps if you keep the context transparent and don’t omit vital portions:

Pete: When we torture, we assign value to human life according to our own priorities.
KK: Yes….like staying alive so we can continue to exercise those human life values.
We aren’t the ones who have challenged those of “the other guy”.
They are the ones that have challenged our RIGHT to have & keep ours.


Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Torture, Its Legality and its effectiveness,

Originally posted by petesahooligan:


If torture doesn’t work, then it doesn’t work.

And, if it does, then it does.
Until someone shows me that the former is true, I’ll keep an open mind about the latter.

We can’t call it a “last resort” if it doesn’t work. If it works, great! Let’s do it! Let’s jump right to torture. Why not, right?
This is were credibility falls apart.
First: YES, we CAN call it a last resort: a final course of action, used ONLY when all else has failed.
Second: We can call it a last EFFORT to gain information that will save one/many lives.
After that, regardless of success, all efforts/resorts are ceased.

Here’s the fundamental hypocrisy. One cannot cause violence in the name of preventing it.

Yes, they can…and do.
What part of my statement about the MACRO-focus called WAR?
We kill (or be killed) when we battle in war.

It’s the flimsiest of all justifications. Drug dealers use it all the time. “I didn’t think I was doing any harm because if I don’t do it, someone else will… so I might as well reap the benefits instead of them.”
Two entirely different concepts.
The benefits reaped aren’t filthy monetary gains from participation in an activity that is typically self-induced. What is ridiculous is to vilify a drug dealer who is supplying substances that many of us here on the forum believe should be legalized for use by “certified” adults.

I strongly believe that if I don’t do what and ALL that is necessary to protect my life when it is being SERIOUSLY threatened, then I have less-than-total belief that my life is of more value than the ppl who are trying to take it.

When we torture, we assign value to human life according to our own priorities.
Yes….like staying alive so we can continue to exercise those human life values.
We aren’t the ones who have challenged those of “the other guy”.
They are the ones that have challenged our RIGHT to have & keep ours.
Clearly the tortured person doesn’t share those priorities. However, as they are our detainees, we are in the position of power and can—through force—exert our priorities.
Not entirely the correct scenario.
Those detained are believed to be part of those who are actually “in power” in that they are using their power to be the aggressors and have initiated a use of reactionary power by us.

We aren’t using our “power” to just go out and find those ppl who are somewhat “different” than us and start torturing & killing them. Two sides of a coin of the reason for use of power.

(This power dynamic is similar to the argument that claims it is technically impossible for minorities to be racists.)
I don’t know of any “technicality” that says any specific person of their race can’t also be racist against the oppressor.

In fact, I’m surprised when there isn’t some degree of resentment, apprehension , backlash from the persecuted minority towards the persecutor.

Where the RACISM concept comes in is when those sentiments are tremendously escalated to the heighted degree of: the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

Saying that reverse-racism doesn’t exist is as ignorant as saying that racism is practiced by the totality of the majority.

What value, Karma, is an ideal to you?
Depends hugely upon the ideal.
Subjective and in what context and how it is judged by the perspective of the observer.
Is there any value to “lofty idealism?”
Depends hugely upon the ideal
Subjective and in what context and how it is judged by the perspective of the observer.
Should decisions be made purely along pragmatic and/or self-serving lines?

The decision to survive—by temporarily setting aside absolute pacifism in favor of aggressively protecting the right to continue living and doing it in a pacific manner—really shouldn’t be all that difficult. It is when we move in degrees away from the absolutism of death or enslavement where the decision making begins to get “complicated”.

We need to keep in mind that our aggression is of an overall defensive nature.
Sometimes, the best defense is an offense.

It seems ironic to have the phrase “lofty idealism” and “doesn’t make it right” in the same passage. What does “right” mean in that context? According to societal norms?
Again…highly subjective and varying shades of gray are strongly & widely applied.
Depending upon what one calls “right”, preventing loss of life and not being enslaved tend to be the kind of “lofty idealism” that can be considered to be pragmatic and self-serving.

Once more, we are back to the discussion of PURE pacifism vs. non-aggressive pacifism.
PURE/absolute pacifism: the belief that any violence, including war, is unjustifiable under any circumstances, and that all disputes should be settled by peaceful means [even when it is clear this is not at all possible?]. An absolute pacifist is generally described by the British Broadcasting Corporation as one who believes that human life is so valuable, that a human should never be killed and war should never be conducted, even in self-defense. .

Non-violent pacifism: _Some pacifists follow principles of nonviolence, believing that nonviolent action is morally superior and/or most effective. Some however, support physical violence for emergency defence of self or others.

Non-aggression: In contrast to the non-violence principle stands the non-aggression principle which rejects the initiation of violence, but permits the use of violence for self-defence or the defence of others.

Kasic Pete, I am well aware that you are an absolutist.
I have no problem at all w/ that.
Where the problem comes in when you want to “own” pacifism because of its being the “purest” form of it.
Again, subjective…does this mean everyone should subscribe to it?

Is it ALWAYS the wisest form to use/be?
Depends on what one calls “wise”.
When all pacifists are dead, so is that particular lofty idealism.
The very concept of deadly aggression means that it will always survive over absolute pacifism when it comes to kill-or-be-killed.

Raw as that form of survival of the fittest is, that very base fact deems absolute pacifism to be inferior in concept. For an individual, YES…fine for them & their lofty idealism.

But, that position is basically defended by those who are willing to be non-aggressive pacifists.
There is no getting around that concept.
Should no defense be required (no challenge); then all manner of pacifism is being served and is of “equal value”….any “degrees” are essentially moot and “all is good”.

It is when peace is violently challenged that absolute pacifism is only of value to the holder. Being pacific doesn’t ensure peace.

At its rawest, peace exists/survives because of a willingness to either defend it by one group; or ensure that it is a result of the aggressor’s intent to use violence to bring about their “version” of peace.

vikaTae (and Karma): Clearly I am being facetious when I suggest that we might use torture to exact the time of day from people. I hope that wasn’t really necessary to explain.

It wasn’t necessary for me.
As you point out, I am well aware of reductio ad absurdum—slippery slope and how degrees apply.
I’m just not sure why the need for ya to have “gone there” to use something so obviously and ridiculously “reduced” from the soberness of discussing how torture applies to non-aggressive self-defense/preservation.

I understand how, even why, you are strongly passionate about pacifism and how that goes to the very core of you being. I just know you to be too intelligent to obfuscate your position by such an unneeded diversion. I know you don’t need that degree as a “last resort” to have your “lofty” idealism respected….at least by me.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Torture, Its Legality and its effectiveness,

Originally posted by vikaTae:


In other words, just because something can be done, it does not follow that it must be done, or even should be done.

I might even go so far as to say: this includes this thing of somehow being righteously connected to some lofty idealism.

And, a favorite of mine: having the right to do something doesn’t necessarily make it right to do it.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Darren Wilson a murderer.

Originally posted by DanielMontgomery:
I have been poor and so is my family but I moved out, learned a lot and got an excellent job now I’m no longer poor.

Daniel, when you are finished stomping around all proud like in YOUR boots, try walking a few miles in those other ppl’s shoes. You simply cannot make these kind of assumptive judgments and be taken seriously.

This really isn’t about YOU vs. them.
Just because you are capable of doing something difficult doesn’t mean they can or are able or are going to get the breaks you did that ya just might not be aware of….BECAUSE YOU ARE WHITE or are somehow otherwise “privileged”.

All of your scenarios there are “good on paper”;
but, in real life, they really are just shit the idiot conservatives use to placate their loose Christian beliefs into being able to not care about “those people” because they obviously don’t want to help themselves nor even be helped….so we won’t.

They are childish approaches to very adult issues.

Okay, I see I should probably be more specific:

No I was referring to the fact that they have the same exact rights as a white man does.

Simply rebutted: “having” isn’t the same as “getting” them exercised.
… makes me want to slap the fuck out of them because they’re doing absolutely nothing to better themselves so that way they’re worth more and then they do nothing to put themselves in a position to earn more.
If I am following all of that, difficult as it is, we are talking about fail logic. One simply can’t get blood out of a turnip. A person can’t get a job that doesn’t exist….or is given to someone that is viewed as being ALREADY “worth more”.
In the case of these communities that are rioting because their situations are bad it is because for decades they have let their communities fall to the wayside all they allowed these things to happen within their neighborhood.
Okay, instead of talking about a neighborhood, let’s analogize it to a widow living on a fixed income in the house she (and her husband) lived in for 40 years and raised 3 kids.

Her husband long dead, no serious income even when alive, nothing able to be saved for the “golden years” (that happen when you don’t make a lot of money to begin with), Social Security yielding barely enough to eat on, repairs & upkeep of the property/house very expensive (other ppl like to make a living wage).

Now, tell me what this widow needs to be doing to keep her house on the block from going downhill…pull money outta her ass?

When I hear this shit about what a depressed neighborhood “should be doing”, I want to—how was it that YOU put it—slap the fuck outta ppl who manifest this shit idea of “pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps”. Esp. when the sitty hand-me-down shoes they are able to afford don’t even have bootstraps.

I think it’s utter bullshit to say something like oh there’s a gang in my neighborhood and I can’t remove them. Fuck that get your community together and exercise your Second Amendment right and Force those cocksuckers out.
Tisk…tisk…tisk, this kind of thinking is utterly ignorant.
So, YOU want the ppl in the neighborhood to go to WAR w/ gangs that have lots of high-powered guns, nothing invested in the neighborhood, and really don’t much give a fuck if they die? YOU want the neighborhood to watch their houses burn down? YOU want drive by shootings at random. YOU think the police can stop this?
You bet your ass the government would step in and remove those able from your community before they let us Civil War erupt in a community.
That is the last place the police or any other part of govt. will care about in this class warfare.
Govt is there to protect those who put money INTO the system.
If you want to win the war on drugs inyour community you had better put some skin in the game because if you don’t give a shit about your community then why should we?
Why are you saying that just because there are crack houses in a neighborhood that the residents there don’t care?
Seriously….why be so ignorantly judgmental?
That is an stupid back-handed insult to those ppl.
No mistakes I wasn’t singling out blacks, I was singling out any group of people who would point the finger outward rather than pointing the finger and word to find out what the individual can do.

Maybe not INTENTIONALLY singling out Blacks;
but, by default…this is basically pretty much what it boils down to.
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Torture, Its Legality and its effectiveness,

Originally posted by vikaTae:

Why should we simply torture everyone? Since you’ve made the leap that because something is always going to be possible, that means we should always do it, I trust you won’t mind explaining your reasoning?

Maybe something of the nature of: the punishment should fit the crime?

Perhaps we are micro-focusing on an activity we are calling “torture” where very unpleasant things are being done by one side to another?

I’ve PERSONALLY found that the macro-focus of seeing the “one-side-against-the-other” thing, usually called WAR, is nothing more than large-scale, protracted, extremely violent & costly (in lives, injuries, emotions, materials, resources, etc.) TORTURE.

I don’t have a problem w/ discussing this miniscule area of torture;
just let’s not lose focus on the much bigger and more vile picture of real torture to the point we forget to address that one.

Most likely won’t have the one if we solve the other.
But, will likely still have the one even if we solve the other.
That is my LEVEL of pacifism.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Insightful Quotes

Aha, I C.
Regardless, I’m glad the thread is back.
Now, let’s have some of those insightful quotes.
Good thoughts are never dead.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Eric Garner fiasco

More on Tamir Rice.

These videos clearly show just how much bullshit our McAlty was trying to run by us.
This one shows that the man sitting n the gazebo wasn’t frozen w/ fear.
It shows that the man was actually Tamir Rice.
He was alone as opposed to what the police reported as being w/ other ppl when they rolled up.

There PREVIOUSLY WAS a man in the gazebo when Rice was walking around on the sidewalk;
but, editing doesn’t show when he exited and was “replaced” by Rice in the gazebo.
Screw you McAlty.

The video shows the police also were extremely stupid in that they didn’t stop their car a good 30-50 feet from Rice and begin ordering him to put up hands and get to the ground. Rice was shot even before the driver got his door open…he was shot within seconds of the car stopping.

There was some data presented that the car skidded on the wet grass.
Maybe so…but, still stupid to be going at a speed where control of the vehicle wasn’t warranted.
There were no other ppl around and in immediate danger…
no need for that level of haste.

The biggest bit of data that McAlty failed to reveal is how the 911 caller told the operator that the gun was probably FAKE. The operator appears to ignore this important bit and moves right on to wanting description of Rice’s clothing. Maybe this is why the polices weren’t informed of the likelihood that the gun was fake….as reported by the person making the 911 call

The police must have not known about the camera in the park or they wouldn’t have tried to say they ordered Rice to the ground THREE times before shooting him. Regardless of how many times so ordered, there wasn’t enough time for Rice to have responded to them. What did happen is that some action—video shows Rice reaching towards his waist—by him caused the rookie NYC cop to begin firing.

Yes, had I stupidly presented myself to a man, reported to have a gun, by pulling my car up to within 8 feet while still a sitting duck (me in direct line of fire into my window of my car), I might have been a bit paniced and began shooting as soon as I could.

The BBC take on the incident