Why so many Anti-American?

[amicus]

LordDragonswing...et al...

After having computer problems for a few days it was interesting to once again view the Authors Hangout and persuse the commentary. All five pages of this one...took a while.

Your initial post, why so many anti american...I have found endemic to this site and many others.

It is less than two months since the Liberals went down to defeat on election day and the metamorphosis is in full view.

The first couple of pages on this thread was a disavowal that the usual suspects were indeed anti american. Oh, no, surely not, they don't hate americans in general, or the government specifically, no not at all, they just want to offer 'honorable criticism' or some such tripe.

Then the middle page or so, the usual attempt to hijack or dissolve and redirect the thread...typical behaviour.

But in the last couple of pages, with some very interesting and long posts, the true nature of the beast once again reared its ugly and unaplogetic head.

People with an utopian socialist, collectivist view and concept of the world truly despise democracy, as it involves individual liberty and freedom of action.

They hate it so much because in a competitive world, individual values are judged, not group grope values and ethics based on the 'greater good', the sacrifice of the individual for the state.

Pacifists, anti war folks, have always been around and use the same arguments as always. They fail to acknowledge the basic truth that would destroy their argument; namely that conflict, war, whether between an individual or a state, is basically the innocent protecting protecting their lives and property against the thieves and criminals in any society.

Even on a larger scale, it is more often a search for resources by which to live than it is conquest and the imposition of 'belief' on an adjacent neighbor. And that usually in a closed society where resources are 'owned' by the ruling partry.

Free trade, a peaceful exchange of goods and services between peoples is the only means to peace.

Lord Dragonwing, they are not only anti american, they are anti freedom, anti individualistic. They want control; they want to manage the environment, the associations between people, the productivity of people, indeed the 'lives' of people.

That mental attitude is well reflected in the teachings of Islam where 'god is great' and mirrored by the socialists to whom the 'state is great'.

This magnificent experiment in human freedom, just a few hundred years old in America, must and will always be defended from those who would destroy it.


Happy New Year to all...


Amicus2k5

 

[BlackShanglan]

Jeez, Joe, do you really believe this load of shit you are piling on us? Wars are not noble or heroic or manly. Wars are not fought to right wrongs.

Almost all wars are economic in nature. Almost all wars have at their root: 'you've got something I want and I'm going to take it from you'.

The concept of a 'noble war' is an oxymoron. Looking back at American history, name a war that was noble. Studs Terkel called World War II "the good war" and probably he was right I guess.

World War I (the Great War) was just stupid, the result of bad diplomacy and boys with toys.

The Spanish American War? Christ spare me. Viet Nam? It's thirty years later and I'm still unsure why we fought it.

Maybe Grenada! We saved all of those medical students and a possible vacation spot.

Joe perhaps you should move away from your academic paradise for a second and move into the real world, where people die, are injured, maimed, tortured, raped and pillaged by war. And for what? So that diamond mine, that oil field, those mineral deposits, that arable land that belongs to you can now belong to me. Or so that my economic system has control of things rather than your economic system.

I can't apply noble purpose to goals such as these.

Interesting. However, it's intriguing to me that you mention WWII. While hesitant, perhaps, to go quite so far as Joe, I would point out that the profound anti-war sentiment after WWI - which I would agree was a bloody, pointless, insane mess - seems to have been part of what let Hitler get as far as he did before anyone really weighed in against him. He seems to have judged, rather accurately, that much of Europe would endure a great deal rather than enter into another war. In that case, however, hindsight suggests that at least six million people would have been better off if he'd been stopped earlier. The international community seems to have come to the same conclusion about Rowanda - in fact, I have seen some very heated and angry rhetoric levelled against the United States for not intervening earlier - and will likely come to similar conclusions about the Sudan, where the populace is no doubt reassured to learn that in a few months, the UN will seriously consider some sort of ground action. In the mean time, the slaughter continues.

There can be immense difficulty in discerning the difference between a liberation and a conquest - especially when an invasion can begin as one and become the other. But while I certainly agree with Bullet that most wars are the result of greed and expansionist policies, I will not go so far as to declare that all are. What did Somalia have to offer the United States - vast sand reserves? What did Rowanda have to give any of the groups who eventually helped to establish peace there? And for that matter, what has Afghanistan, practically at a stone age level of daily subsistance, to give us economically? I do not say that war is a good thing. If, however, I were a female Afghani - and perhaps this is merely my peculiar nature - I would prefer a bombed-out house and the right to vote and walk freely about the streets without being hooded and blinded to a whole roof under which I might exist in utter slavery.

I agree with Franklin so far as that there never was a good war. But I think there have been bad peaces, bought at the cost of much silent suffering - and I think that there have been wars, if not good, then necessary. While we would like to believe that man can evolve beyond the need for war - and I rather hope that he can - I don't believe that that can be a one-sided process. That is, I think that however civilized and commited to peace one side might be, if the other side becomes aggressive and militarized, war may be the only option.

Shanglan

 

[Goldie Munro]

LordDragonswing...et al...



Free trade, a peaceful exchange of goods and services between peoples is the only means to peace.

Lord Dragonwing, they are not only anti american, they are anti freedom, anti individualistic. They want control; they want to manage the environment, the associations between people, the productivity of people, indeed the 'lives' of people.

That mental attitude is well reflected in the teachings of Islam where 'god is great' and mirrored by the socialists to whom the 'state is great'.




Happy New Year to all...


Amicus2k5

Amicus don't you see that you are espousing a 'free trade is good' attitude? Just because you are a Muslim does not mean you are anti democarcy or if you are a socialist you are anti competition. Politics, beliefs, emotions are not black and white - not with us or against us - they cover a myriad of opinions.

 

[scheherazade_79]

Amicus, do you genuinely mean to trash other people's postings, or are you just too thick-skinned to notice when you're doing it?

I expect your superiority complex will stop you from responding to this - doubly so as I happen to be female - but I don't really care.

 

[amicus]

Trashing posts?

I suppose if you define debate and disagreement as 'trashing' then I am guilty.

Superiority complex? I have little respect for those who advocate slavery/socialism and a controlled economy versus a free one.

I oppose any idea that justifies the right of others to live off my efforts at the point of a gun. And if they get in my face, I will shoot back, not being a pacifist.


Happy New Year, even if you are a girl.

 

[Goldie Munro]

Trashing posts?

I oppose any idea that justifies the right of others to live off my efforts at the point of a gun. And if they get in my face, I will shoot back, not being a pacifist.

Well we agree there then! I think that is what most people would think!

 

[amicus]

"...Amicus2k5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Amicus don't you see that you are espousing a 'free trade is good' attitude? Just because you are a Muslim does not mean you are anti democarcy or if you are a socialist you are anti competition. Politics, beliefs, emotions are not black and white - not with us or against us - they cover a myriad of opinions.


__________________


My friend, it is not 'free trade' that is the root, it is human freedom, the right to choose. That is black and white, it is self evident and it is an ethical 'good' to all peoples. Muslim women, by birth, have the innate rights that all humans have.

On that basis alone, any free nation is morally empowered to act to free them from oppression, allah be damned!

amicus

 

[Svenskaflicka]

A bit off topic CV, I thought you were tryin to be nice and get along with peoples lately? Anywho I am always nice so I say this with a warm fuzzy feelin "Don't fuck with me."

I do not have "FUCK ME" written on my forehead.

I don't mind if people fuck me, as long as they don't fuck with me.

 

[Somme]

Amicus, with respect, you, mate, have seriously lost the plot. What you wrote is such light comedy that under other circumstances it'd be funny. As it is, it addresses nothing of substance, and I'd go so far to say it's a poor attempt at emulation of the nonsense writers who are, in part, responsible for the world-wide 'skeptisiscm' of anything that comes out of your country. Well, almost all, because fortunately for the (US)A there are fine journalists who will not be silenced, who will report the truth as they see it, who try to show that the almost universal disdain for your present government is not anti-democratic, or even anti-(US)A and who refuse to be cowed by the vitriol of those currently in charge. Or seemingly in charge.

I'm tempted to ignore your cheap, tawdry and ill-concidered drivel because frankly, it wastes precious time. On the other hand, I must admit to a certain satisfaction at seeing you publically demeaning yourself.

 

[scheherazade_79]

Trashing posts?

I suppose if you define debate and disagreement as 'trashing' then I am guilty.

Hmmm... now let me see...

The first couple of pages on this thread was a disavowal that the usual suspects were indeed anti american. Oh, no, surely not, they don't hate americans in general, or the government specifically, no not at all, they just want to offer 'honorable criticism' or some such tripe.

Rather a sweeping generalisation, not to mention a dismissive attitude to several people's opinions. Also, I struggle to see how labeling them as 'tripe' falls into the category of debate.

Superiority complex? I have little respect for those who advocate slavery/socialism and a controlled economy versus a free one.

Fair enough, but if you had a little more humility you'd realise that I wasn't referring to your views on this topic.

Happy New Year, even if you are a girl.

I can't really think of anything to say to that, Amicus - mainly because I'm laughing so much. Did anyone ever tell you you're kind of cute when you get grizzly?

Happy New Year, Amicus - that is, if you're willing to receive that greeting from a girl.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Muslim women, by birth, have the innate rights that all humans have.

Hmmm. Much as I hate to disagree with the founders of our country, I would argue that rights are granted, not born. One might argue that all humans should be granted certain inalienable rights, but they must be fought for - they are, clearly, not innately recognized by all people, nor universally granted. I mention this, of course, because I would further argue that the rights must be defined as well. We've developed quite a lot of new rights in the last couple of hundred years - rights to privacy, to personal expression, to repoductive freedom, to sexual perference - and these rights are still in the process of being defined, bounded, and granted. It will be interesting to see what other "natural and inalienable" rights we may come up with in the future.

All of that, of course, makes interesting Amicus's assertion that nations are justified in delivering rights at sword-point by invading countries that don't grant them willingly. Shall we look forward to an invasion from Europe, which seems to be moving very strongly toward a universal right to marriage, including for gay couples? If we deny our people this basic human right, surely they should invade us.

Shanglan

 

[Goldie Munro]

"...Amicus2k5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Amicus don't you see that you are espousing a 'free trade is good' attitude? Just because you are a Muslim does not mean you are anti democarcy or if you are a socialist you are anti competition. Politics, beliefs, emotions are not black and white - not with us or against us - they cover a myriad of opinions.


__________________


My friend, it is not 'free trade' that is the root, it is human freedom, the right to choose. That is black and white, it is self evident and it is an ethical 'good' to all peoples. Muslim women, by birth, have the innate rights that all humans have.

On that basis alone, any free nation is morally empowered to act to free them from oppression, allah be damned!

amicus

Do people have the right to be Muslims then - damned by you or not?

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

Amicus, do you genuinely mean to trash other people's postings. . .

Oh, but that is one of his JOYS!

I have put Amimus on ignore.

Since I did that, I have been experiencing profound relief from that pain of understanding that age does not guarantee wisdom.

Except when one of you lot quote Animus, I can joyfully pass days, even weeks at a time, without being niggled at by his niggling NIGGLING!

If you would all follow my example, the composite intellect of this board would rise by several points.

Animus could continue posting without opposition, and we could continue on unniggled, except when our perverse human nature’s would egg us into opening one of his posts (like going to see the Geek bite off the head of a chicken, at some malodorous Carney) without letting anyone else know.

 

[thebullet]

If you would all follow my example, the composite intellect of this board would rise by several points.

VB:

as always you give me two things, a bit of a hard on because of your AV (uh, sorry); and something to think about.

Thanks. Amicus is off my computer for good!

 

[BlackShanglan]

Do people have the right to be Muslims then - damned by you or not?

I think this question is the root of all rights questions in another guise. That is, do people have the right to do things that take away the rights of others? Practically speaking, it will have to occur. For example, my right to own property may interfere with Goldie's right to pursue happiness if the happiness she wishes to pursue is the ownership of my television. Objectively speaking, the question becomes not so much "should people have these rights" - property ownership, freedom of religion, right to pursue happiness, etc. - but "which rights trump other rights?" What is the heirarchy of rights? When two sets of rights come into conflict - in Goldie's example, the right to freely practice religion vs. the right of women to exist as equal members of society - what wins?

Sadly, our society lacks a thoroughly coherent way to settle this. Direct right-to-right conflicts tend to work out pretty well - if someone's attempting to take your life, you're justified in taking his - but the conflicts of different rights are tricky. Can you take someone's life if he's threatening your property? What if his right to free speech is threatening your religion? These thorny issues, I think, are what make legislation and penal codes so tricky. It's a very fine thing to judge which right must prevail, and often a sensible person would have to argue that it comes down to the specific circumstances of the situation. There's no easy way to untagle that coil.

Shanglan

 

[amicus]

If I could figure a way to post the AH awards accorded me, I would, but I wished I might have been awarded 'The Most Ignored'. I would hold that as a badge of honor.

Shanglan...you make some interesting points...defining rights is called law and the judicial system. But they all begin with one axiom, that a human being has the innate right to live.

You deny that there are any innate, self evident rights, and in doing so make it impossible for any logical, reasoned approach to truly comprehending the entire question.

Ayn Rand provides a much better epistemology than I can, especially on this forum, if you wish to pursue an understanding of why a human being is born with the 'right' to live and that rights are innate and must be protected. The rights of life, liberty and property must never be considered 'granted' by others.

That is basically the root of all evil at all levels. Those who assume they have the 'power' to grant life.

Each time a poster says the old Amicus is on ignore, I consider that an indication that my rhetoric got a little close to home and you scurried away with your tail safely tucked over your genitals.

Cheers!

 

[Goldie Munro]

If I could figure a way to post the AH awards accorded me, I would, but I wished I might have been awarded 'The Most Ignored'. I would hold that as a badge of honor.

Shanglan...you make some interesting points...defining rights is called law and the judicial system. But they all begin with one axiom, that a human being has the innate right to live.

You deny that there are any innate, self evident rights, and in doing so make it impossible for any logical, reasoned approach to truly comprehending the entire question.

Ayn Rand provides a much better epistemology than I can, especially on this forum, if you wish to pursue an understanding of why a human being is born with the 'right' to live and that rights are innate and must be protected. The rights of life, liberty and property must never be considered 'granted' by others.

That is basically the root of all evil at all levels. Those who assume they have the 'power' to grant life.

Each time a poster says the old Amicus is on ignore, I consider that an indication that my rhetoric got a little close to home and you scurried away with your tail safely tucked over your genitals.

Cheers!

Jeez Amicus you are such a put upon guy! Ever thought why? Free speech - you have the right to say what you believe and the rest of us have the right to disagree with you! Simple ain't it!

 

[rgraham666]

I was under the impression that Ms. Rand's epistemology on the hierarchy of rights was quite simple.

If you have power, you have rights, as many as you can enforce.

Err, that's it.

And regarding war, to me, war is like surgery. Your last choice and one that must be minutely planned and swiftly executed.

The best a soldier can do is buy time. - Jerry Pournelle

 

[Guest]

Oh, but that is one of his JOYS!

I have put Amimus on ignore.

Since I did that, I have been experiencing profound relief from that pain of understanding that age does not guarantee wisdom.

Except when one of you lot quote Animus, I can joyfully pass days, even weeks at a time, without being niggled at by his niggling NIGGLING!

If you would all follow my example, the composite intellect of this board would rise by several points.

Animus could continue posting without opposition, and we could continue on unniggled, except when our perverse human nature’s would egg us into opening one of his posts (like going to see the Geek bite off the head of a chicken, at some malodorous Carney) without letting anyone else know.

Reading an ami post is always an exercise in futility, isn't it?

I remember one of his first completely argumentative threads in the AH, unfortunately titled The Feminist Mistake. I attempted to give him the benefit of the doubt then, but it was soon quite evident to all that his opinions had been well-formed and cast in iron many years ago, and usually without the benefit of any research or proof.

Ahh, ami.

And, I remember how his responses to Pure were quite insulting until someone pointed out to him that Pure was a guy. (His tone changed somewhat after that).

I find his "holier than thou" take on every subject really amusing, especially with all the . . . between his most pertinent points.

When he's on ignore, the threads read so much more quickly, and the threads he begins won't even show up (an added bonus!)

But sometimes, very much like slowing down to view an accident, I'll open the post to see the rhetoric spew.

And it's always disappointing. Because he always says . . . the . . . same . . . thing.

Cheers, ami.

 

[robynwildchild]

If you don't like us then leave us alone. If you have a problem I'd suggest you do like the rest of us do and write our Senators and Representives. Just please, I'm tired of seeing the anti-american sentiment. Before you put us down work out your own affairs.


who writes to senators or representatives... REALLY.
i'd rather write to the local newspaper. as a matter of fact i have...

its hard to say leave us alone when we're the ones sticking our guns out.
we've been goin into other countries to help them for years.
we, the united states of america, have been one of the wealthiest countries in the world. have taken it upon ourselves to be the justice to the world because we think we're right. do most countries go out of thier way to help.. they can't.

we eat while they starve.

we have gadgets and gizmos, the solutions and the easier way of life, we have the technology, the resources, the property the equipment
the way that this country is publicized through the media tho.. i mean have you watched tv?
the commericals, the mtv.vh1 shows, reality shows, the way people act and treat each other. the way we are represented through that facet isn't making it any prettier. We're spoiled bitches, and there are so many spoiled bitches inbetween the red white and blue.. We're not seen as we once were... responsible, loyal, hardworking or self disiplined. We're rich, frivolous, alcoholic, drugged up and party-ready for tomorrow.

i like this country when its helping other people.
when its responsible and not tryin to get away with something.
when its not lying to the public like a child who just got caught with its hand in the cookie jar.
when its not shooting its mouth off acting like a self centered piece of shit.

HELL THERE ARE STILL THOSE IN THIS COUNTRY THAT ARE RACIST AND BIASED AGAINST RELIGION AND SEX. WHAT MAKES US BETTER? what makes it more acceptable to love thy neighbor when they neighbor holds a grudge... when they think that religion is the base of government. When two people that love each other cant get a legal paper binding them that says so. where a woman can't make a choice to have a baby or not, its her fucking body. WHEN WINNING AN ELECTION COMES DOWN TO A SCANDLE IN COUNTING VOTES. why won't i have any social security when i'm 80.. my children not goin to be able to go to college because i never have enough money for myself let alone saving for the person who doesn't exist yet.. have you seen how insane it is to go to school today and what it will be in the future...?!?

The state of pennsylvania is going bancrupt from both ends of its major cities with transportation goin through the shitter hoping that the state will bail them out .. how is that effective governing for a nation?

i have more respect for canadians.

 

[amicus]

Ahhh...sweetsubsarah.....you will miss me when I am gone.

And the Feminine Mistake thread...that any one would dare question the right of a woman to kill a baby, really set you back on your heels.

And of course the supposition that men and women might actually be somewhat different in outlook and not fully equal in all aspects. Must have given you nightmares.


cheers...did I think pure was female? not sure, I try to make my judgments on posts objective and not gender biased, and I can usually determine a hissy fit. I have, however, been wrong on occasion. (rarely)

Happy New Years....

amicus the abominable....

 

[Guest]

And the inevitable response . . .

Can't attack with facts so you attempt the woman as overtly-emotional and prone to hissy fits approach.

*sigh*

That's a bit disappointing, even for you, ami.

By the way, I was the one who told you Pure was male. If you like I can find that thread. Your responses to his posts quickly changed from condescending to buddy/buddy. That was (to many of us) a clear indication of your obvious bias and inability to see both sides of any gender-related issue.

 

[Couture]

And the Feminine Mistake thread...that any one would dare question the right of a woman to kill a baby, really set you back on your heels.

amicus the abominable....

I've often wondered how the Democrat party ended up being the pro-choice party instead of the Republicans. I bet there was a lot of wrangling going on with that issue.

Don't blame me, I voted for the turd sandwich.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Shanglan...you make some interesting points...defining rights is called law and the judicial system. But they all begin with one axiom, that a human being has the innate right to live.

It's interesting that you mention this. As I was composing the last message, I very nearly attempted to start the sorting of hierarchies by stating that life was the highest. However, if we look more closely at how courts and laws have interpreted things in the past, at least in the United States, I don't believe this to be true. Aside from what seems, from your comments in your recent posts, to be your opposition to abortion - which would appear to privilege the liberty/pursuit of happiness over life - there would also be the fact that property is often privileged over life, as are freedom of trade and freedom of movement (i.e., we don't have the right to steal in order to pay for medical treatment, and we are permitted to use vehicles that kill many people each year in order to continue trade and move about). I think that this supports my previous statement - that it's nearly always a matter, not of one right absolutely trumping another every time, but of individual degree. My general right to drive about in a car trumps the right to life of anyone who might by small chance accidentally be killed by me in an accident. However, my right is moderated as well - I lose the right to drive above certain speeds, or to drive when intoxicated, in which cases the right to life is upheld over my right to freedom of movement. My right to move freely is also considered to be greater than the rights of those around me to have air unpolluted by my car, etc. etc.

You deny that there are any innate, self evident rights, and in doing so make it impossible for any logical, reasoned approach to truly comprehending the entire question.

Ayn Rand provides a much better epistemology than I can, especially on this forum, if you wish to pursue an understanding of why a human being is born with the 'right' to live and that rights are innate and must be protected. The rights of life, liberty and property must never be considered 'granted' by others.

I do not believe a thing to be true simply because it would be convenient for it to be so. In this case, I certainly agree that without a solution that reduces the alternatives, the intersections of personal rights are a tangled mess with no easy solution in sight. I believe this, however, to be true. I find Rand tedious, personally, and have not been convinced that life, liberty, and property are in any way distinct from other, more modern "rights" such as free trade, democratic representative, or reproduction. Rights are concepts that we grant each other, not things that we are born with. If we were born with an absolute right to life, we'd either not be killed in the natural order of things or would have to assume that every death violated the natural order of things, and so with property and liberty as well. As these concepts are violated constantly in the natural world and are in fact the "natural" mode of existance for all animals and for most humans until very recent times, I fail to see how these rights can in any way be considered innate.

That is basically the root of all evil at all levels. Those who assume they have the 'power' to grant life.

Speaking pragmatically, nearly all of us have the power to create life - albeit on a very limited scale - and to take it. To deny that we have the ability is foolish. To suggest that we limit our use of it is prudent, but again, this is a choice. It is not a "natural" or "inalienable" behavior.

Shanglan

 

[BlackShanglan]

Re: And the inevitable response . . .

Can't attack with facts so you attempt the woman as overtly-emotional and prone to hissy fits approach.

Yes, that really was quite a poor choice, amicus. To ignore the argument and attack the arguer achieves nothing and looks cowardly. When we do not apply reason, we leave others to assume that we have none to apply.

Shanglan