Page 19 of 24 FirstFirst ... 91415161718192021222324 LastLast
Results 361 to 380 of 474
  1.    #361  
    Originally posted by Toby
    Imagine there's no heaven. It's easy if you try...
    John Lenon isn't my favorite person in history, but I think he was on to something. Aim high. :-)
  2. #362  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    John Lenon isn't my favorite person in history, but I think he was on to something. Aim high. :-)
    No, he was _on_something_, and he _was_ high.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  3. #363  
    OK Mr. Nowak,

    Are you denying that most scientist believe Global warming exists?

    I see your point about the iceberg. It does make sense... but icebergs is one thing.. a chunk of ice the size of some U.S states is another. I haven't come across anything that refer to the ice that broke off as an iceberg.


    Originally posted by John Nowak


    It is much more likely you don't know what you're talking about.



    http://www.co2science.org/journal/2002/v5n5c1.htm

    Is a link to a short summary of Nature's 35 year Antarctical overall temperature study, indicating that Antarctica is getting colder faster than any place on earth.

    You see, Yardie, Antarctica is covered with ice. Ice spills into the warmer salt water ocean, melts, and chunks split off.

    These are called "Icebergs." You may have heard of them in your studies.
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  4. #364  
    What international conspiracy? Do you know something that I don't?


    Originally posted by John Nowak


    Must be their international conspiracy.
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  5. #365  
    Hmm.. I don't think I get your point.

    Originally posted by CryptikPSU

    Cmon....Welcome to the age of nuclear war.
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  6. #366  
    Hey Johnathan,

    Nice to meet you. I am curious to know why you are opposed to a war on Iraq.

    Originally posted by jhappel
    yardie said:

    Yardie meet Jonathan - Jonathan meet Yardie

    Hi! How are you? I'm a Jew who opposes the war against Iraq.
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  7. #367  
    There is nothing wrong with making assumptions based based on general trends and observations. Everyone is prejudice. The unfortunate thing is that people tend to link the word with racial and other discrimination.


    Originally posted by John Nowak


    I don't know about Jonathan, but I certainly don't agree. You would be pre-judging your hypothetical Jewish person, or in other words, you would be prejudiced. I consider prejudice to be a bad thing, don't you?
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  8. #368  
    Bush and his boys are telling us that Iraq needs ot be invaded because Saddam is a threat to his neighbours and the U.S. The evidence that we have seen so far is that Iraq *might*have the stuff needed to make nukes.

    Now, North Korea, one of the members in Bush's Axis of Evil club, has admitted that it DOES have nukes. And what does the U.S. do?

    CNN Headline:
    U.S. tells N. Korea disarm or face global pressure

    Funny isn't it? Why aren't the hawks in the U.S administration keen on invading North Korea?

    A Globe and Mail Headline and synopsis

    With North Korea, U.S. wants peace

    Kim might have 'a small number of nuclear weapons,' Rumsfeld believes

    By PAUL KORING
    With a report from Jeff Sallot in Ottawa; SOURCE: WWW.GLOBALSECURITY.ORG,; THE MILITARY BALANCE 2002/2003, WWW.CDISS.ORG


    Friday, October 18, 2002 Print Edition, Page A8


    WASHINGTON -- Confronted with a nuclear-armed rogue state far more militarily powerful than Iraq, Washington said yesterday that it will try to negotiate an end to its emerging crisis with North Korea.

    "We are seeking a peaceful solution," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said yesterday, after the previous night's revelation that the bizarre, post-Stalinist regime had admitted to a nuclear-weapons program. U.S. President George W. Bush didn't mention the issue as he campaigned for his brother Jeb in Florida.

    Confirmation that Pyongyang has continued to pursue its underground program to build nuclear warheads sent a political tsunami through Asia yesterday, threatened strained U.S.-Chinese relations and could derail South Korean efforts to establish better relations with North Korea.


    I checked out the map of the region and couldn't help but notice Alaska in the frame.
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  9. #369  
    Said by K. Cannon: What if J. Happel was hurt and/or offended by your assumption that Jewish people automatically favor war against Iraq?

    1. I'm not J. Happel, I'm JH Appel but that's OK I've been called many things in my life.
    2. Yes, I WAS offended by the assumption that I was in favor of the war against Iraq simply because I'm Jewish. It offends me deeply when someone automatically assigns a certain belief to me (or to anyone) simply because of my (or their) religion. This is what can lead to bigotry.

    Said by KRamsauer: If he offended by the notion that someone is under the impression that more Jewish people favor war than don't, I think he needs to rethink his views.

    No it is YOU who should look into yourself and try to find out why I have to change my views because you prejudge (as in the root of predjudice) me and my beliefs. You have absolutely NO right to say that I have the problem if I do not want to be the victim of predjudice!!!
    Jonathan
  10. #370  
    Said by KRamsauer:
    Remember, in my framework, wanting war against Iraq is no more offensive than prefering orange M&Ms.
    Anyone who thinks that making the decision to go to war with all of the human costs involved, tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands killed, untold billions of dollars wasted that could be used to help people, is the same as choosing what candy to buy has some very serious issues that should be treated. Unless you really do think that human life is worth the same as an M&M.
    Jonathan
  11.    #371  
    Originally posted by jhappel

    No it is YOU who should look into yourself and try to find out why I have to change my views because you prejudge (as in the root of predjudice) me and my beliefs. You have absolutely NO right to say that I have the problem if I do not want to be the victim of predjudice!!!
    My point is it's not prejudice. It's a prediction. If it were something upon which I judge the worth of a human being it would be prejudice. For instance, if I were to assume you were greedy because of your religion, that of course would be prejudice and I ask you to be the first to smack me across the face because of it. However opinion on the Iraq situation doesn't increase or decrease my opinion of you. So don't worry, it isn't prejudice.
  12. #372  
    Once more dear friends into the breach (God I haven't posted this much in this short a time since I registered on this board).

    From KRamsauer (again):
    In this case, your notion of whether or not it is "right" to overthrow Sadam is not cause for me judging you to be a good person or not. So in this case, in my mind, there is no moral weight to your decision on this war.
    Your statement was not that seeking the overthrow of Saddam had no moral weight, your statement was in regard to war. As has been said before war is always, by definition morally charged. But taking your statement about the violent overthrow of the current Iraqi government by the US to its logical conclusion, you should have no moral argument with the Chinese government invading the US to overthrow our government because of our views on their human rights violations.
    Jonathan
  13.    #373  
    Originally posted by jhappel
    Said by KRamsauer:

    Anyone who thinks that making the decision to go to war with all of the human costs involved, tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands killed, untold billions of dollars wasted that could be used to help people, is the same as choosing what candy to buy has some very serious issues that should be treated. Unless you really do think that human life is worth the same as an M&M.
    Please understand what I'm saying. I'm not saying war is the same as M&Ms. Merely your opinion of it. If you want to go to war or if you don't doesn't affect my opinion of you as a person. That is the comparison I'm making: between opinions, not between acts. Read carefully, my stance here is a very carefully thought through manner of deciding what it is okay to assume about people and what it is not. Assuming someone is evil is wrong because you don't have proof. Assuming someone likes orange M&M's is not wrong. It may be stupid, but it isn't wrong.
  14. #374  
    Said before - Remember, in my framework, wanting war against Iraq is no more offensive than prefering orange M&Ms." There are things that people shouldn't be offended by.

    I think you should sit down with your religious leader, if you do follow an organized religion (and I do not know if you do) and ask him/her whether your religions says that wanting to go to war and kills tens if not hundreds of thousnads of people is the same as choosing what candy to eat. If you do not follow an organized religion you should look deeply into yourself, with or without professional help, and see why you do not seem to think that killing is bad.
    Jonathan
  15.    #375  
    Originally posted by jhappel
    Once more dear friends into the breach (God I haven't posted this much in this short a time since I registered on this board).

    From KRamsauer (again):

    Your statement was not that seeking the overthrow of Saddam had no moral weight, your statement was in regard to war. As has been said before war is always, by definition morally charged. But taking your statement about the violent overthrow of the current Iraqi government by the US to its logical conclusion, you should have no moral argument with the Chinese government invading the US to overthrow our government because of our views on their human rights violations.
    My stance is being incredibly mis-interpretted. I am making no judgements about the eventual moral worth of military action, merely assessing my opinion of people who hold opinions for and against the war. The war may indeed be a big big mistake, but I can't justify to myself using someone's opinion on the war as a basis for my judgement of that person. I am making no inferences about the moral value of war, simply my moral interpreation of the opposing stances. The distinction is fine, but I believe clear.
    Last edited by KRamsauer; 10/20/2002 at 12:33 PM.
  16.    #376  
    Originally posted by jhappel


    I think you should sit down with your religious leader, if you do follow an organized religion (and I do not know if you do) and ask him/her whether your religions says that wanting to go to war and kills tens if not hundreds of thousnads of people is the same as choosing what candy to eat. If you do not follow an organized religion you should look deeply into yourself, with or without professional help, and see why you do not seem to think that killing is bad.
    Whether or not I think killing is bad is irrelevant. My point all along has been those who favor the war are not bad people. Those who are against the war are not bad people. Someone's opinion on the war does not weigh on my judgement of that person as a human being. It's like sports team preferences. Of course I have an opinion on the best sports team out there, but I know there is a good chance I am mistaken and don't see people with appointing viewpoints as bad people. So regardless of whether or not I favor action in the mid-east or any war in general is beside the point. I can be a strong war supporter or a strong peace activist, but when looking at people on the sole basis of their opinion on the matter I can't see any differences in moral worth between the people. I am not expressing my opinion on the war or anythign else, merely my interepretation of people who hold the two opinions.
    Last edited by KRamsauer; 10/20/2002 at 12:33 PM.
  17. #377  
    Posted by KRamsauer:
    If I weren't so poor, I'd bet $5 there is no one pursuing this any further. Probably including me.
    Email me the $5.00 I could use it at the bar today while watching football.
    Jonathan
  18.    #378  
    I think it's time for another summary because I'm not appearing to get my point across.

    Let me first say that I have made no claim to know the moral worth of an Iraq II war or anything else (I may have them, but I've illuminated none). War may be universally good. It may be universally bad. It could possibly be somewhere in between.

    What I am forming an opinon of is people who hold various opinions. Here is where I am claiming something. If there are two people who are identical in every respect but one favors war with Iraq and one doesn't, I can't look at one and say "I like you more." This is because to me the ultimate moral worth of the war may be positive or may be negative. Because of this, I cannot for a worth judgement on that basis.

    I'd like to contrast this with a war aimed at extinguishing a race of people. In my opinion such a war would have an unambiguously negative moral worth. In that case I can say, all else being equal, I like people opposing the war more than those favoring it. And of course since such a stance weighs on my judgement of the person I would not be justified in assuming from any information other than direct, clear evidence from the person himself a person's stance on the issue. That would be prejudicial and wrong.

    I am aiming to drive a wedge between the notion of "prejudice" (judging the worth/ability of something before knowing) and valueless predictions (presuming something as innocuous as M&M preference--traits that have no effect on a person's worth in your mind). I believe the two are incredibly different. Fighting to reduce prejudice is a good cause because it encourages an equitible treatment of new people.
  19. #379  
    From Yardie (YAY! I get to respond to someone else): Nice to meet you. I am curious to know why you are opposed to a war on Iraq.
    I am opposed to a war against Iraq at this time because I think there is a lot more that can and should be done diplomatically by the UN and the other countries trying to work something out. Whether or not I oppose a war against Iraq in the future if all diplomatic efforts fail is something I don't know at this time. I think that what is happening with North Korea is a good example of my thoughts. NK has admitted that it has been actively trying to build/obtain nuclear weapons but the Shrub administration is not threatening to invade their country. This in spite of the fact that Dubya has branded NK as on of the three worst terrorist countries in the world. Instead we are trying to use diplomacy to end the threat. This leads me to think that maybe there are other forces at work with the plans for the war against Iraq. Maybe the oil industry wanting to get their hands on Iraq's oil fields?????????????
    Jonathan
  20.    #380  
    Originally posted by jhappel


    I am opposed to a war against Iraq at this time because I think there is a lot more that can and should be done diplomatically by the UN and the other countries trying to work something out. Whether or not I oppose a war against Iraq in the future if all diplomatic efforts fail is something I don't know at this time. I think that what is happening with North Korea is a good example of my thoughts. NK has admitted that it has been actively trying to build/obtain nuclear weapons but the Shrub administration is not threatening to invade their country. This in spite of the fact that Dubya has branded NK as on of the three worst terrorist countries in the world. Instead we are trying to use diplomacy to end the threat. This leads me to think that maybe there are other forces at work with the plans for the war against Iraq. Maybe the oil industry wanting to get their hands on Iraq's oil fields?????????????
    I can't help but think that there must be some kind of "big stick" behind any policy. The big stick in the N. Korean case is that of economics. N. Korea is in dire straights and the leadership wants to change that. In Iraq, it's been very clear that such incentives will not change their policy. In short, the new leadership in Korea seems open to change to achieve economic gains. Iraq seems open to change to achieve survival. The world's best plan is to apply the most effective tool to each situation.

    Do you think the threat of force has nothing to do with recent efforts by Iraq to appease international demands? I agree too that diplomatic means are best but it seems to me like the last 10 years have been nothing but 10 years of examples of needing something else.

    The closest thing I can think of is equating it to union strike threats. Without the credible threat of striking (a result detrimental to both sides, just like war) the union has no possible means having its demands met. I think you agree with this too, since you say that after all diplomatic efforts have failed. However in order to allow diplomatic efforts the chance of succeeding, the threat of war must be ever-present and strong. I think this whole thing is a big misunderstanding. Everyone (well, most) would rather see a disarmed Iraq, and if not, we should do something about it. We just can't seem to agree that past diplomatic efforts, because they were not backed with force, are doomed to repeat themselves if we do not do something different this time.

Posting Permissions