Destoyer Bombing
- Thread starter Dixon Carter Lee
- Start date
Can you see the wood from the trees?
Perhaps one needs to take a step backwards - away from patriotism to able see that there is less here about what Expertise refers to as the morality of a superpower; and probably more about what some may refer to as a grotesque spectacle. (Expertise I am not having a go at you at all, I am just suggesting that there is a compelling counter-argument heavily weighted against the US being anything of a moral yardstick.)
Perhaps one needs to take a step backwards - away from patriotism to able see that there is less here about what Expertise refers to as the morality of a superpower; and probably more about what some may refer to as a grotesque spectacle. (Expertise I am not having a go at you at all, I am just suggesting that there is a compelling counter-argument heavily weighted against the US being anything of a moral yardstick.)
Expertise
Omniscient, Omnipotent and Occasionally Charming
- Joined
- Feb 29, 2000
- Posts
- 10,633
I wasn't thinking or stating that the US was a pillar of morality in international affairs SB (eg. Clinton/Albright and Rwanda). One need not look very far to see that.
What I was suggesting was that in "The court of public opinion" the US seems to be held to a higher standard than most, if not all, other nations. And since image and public opinion are the stuff of life to politicians that there reaction to this will be tempered by it or in response to it. Instead of the right thing, or the militarily advisable thing appearance and image will be in the drivers seat.
What I was saying was that given my options I am happy that it is the US instead of the RUssians or Chinese.
What I was suggesting was that in "The court of public opinion" the US seems to be held to a higher standard than most, if not all, other nations. And since image and public opinion are the stuff of life to politicians that there reaction to this will be tempered by it or in response to it. Instead of the right thing, or the militarily advisable thing appearance and image will be in the drivers seat.
What I was saying was that given my options I am happy that it is the US instead of the RUssians or Chinese.
Hey Expertise, In was on a roll until ...
Yeah, I know what you mean Expertise. I am not not victimizing the US (the way that the Muslim persecution of America is being conducted *laughs*)..... hey admit that was quite funny.
It seems to me that the world of politics is a self-serving thing - morality (as Expertise says) has little to do with decisions that are made. For example ......
Bombing the former Yugosklavia - was that the act of a superpower to demonstrate to humanity the values of a moral code, or was that an attempt to divert attention from an intern sucking the Presidents cock?
And expertise, isn't public opinion a fickle thing? It implies majoritarianism and utilitarianism - but I have a problem with that. Just because most people approve of something doesn't make it right. What if the majority wanted to enslave the minority? There must be a better objective yardstick that offers us a reliable statement of what public policy ought to be - and for god's sake don't somebody suggest Christianity as a measure ...... please.
*Slut_boy ducks the tomatoes*
[Edited by Slut_boy on 10-16-2000 at 07:21 AM]
Yeah, I know what you mean Expertise. I am not not victimizing the US (the way that the Muslim persecution of America is being conducted *laughs*)..... hey admit that was quite funny.
It seems to me that the world of politics is a self-serving thing - morality (as Expertise says) has little to do with decisions that are made. For example ......
Bombing the former Yugosklavia - was that the act of a superpower to demonstrate to humanity the values of a moral code, or was that an attempt to divert attention from an intern sucking the Presidents cock?
And expertise, isn't public opinion a fickle thing? It implies majoritarianism and utilitarianism - but I have a problem with that. Just because most people approve of something doesn't make it right. What if the majority wanted to enslave the minority? There must be a better objective yardstick that offers us a reliable statement of what public policy ought to be - and for god's sake don't somebody suggest Christianity as a measure ...... please.
*Slut_boy ducks the tomatoes*
[Edited by Slut_boy on 10-16-2000 at 07:21 AM]
Expertise
Omniscient, Omnipotent and Occasionally Charming
- Joined
- Feb 29, 2000
- Posts
- 10,633
SB you and I have to sit down and have a few someday...
Establishing some kind of uniform response or doctrine to incidents, that factored in morality and justice, seems nigh on to impossible to me. Although I get, and to some point agree, with your assertions it is virtually undoable. Perhaps in macro or as a broad brush guideline but in the "real world" I just can't see it.
Changing social mores, the realpolitik of the day, and the infinite number of ways that incidents present themselves make my head spin. There are certain timeless and unchanging truths. For instance those that the US declaration of independance finds "self-evident". But too often in incidents of this nature they are not applicable, unworkable or political suicide.
We live in a world where the mores and sensibilities that one nation state, ethnic group, or socio-economic class finds inherrent to "humanity", as they know it, may be totaly alien and even repugnant to any number of others. We would have to be far more homogennous in thought and situation to employ a "moral" system of responses as nations.
On the Yugoslavia issue. I disagree. Although I would hesitate to use the world moral, I don't think the events that took place resulted for the reasons you stated. In fact I think the intentions were threefold.
1) To destablize the Milosovic regime.
2) To justify the continued existance of NATO while shedding its impotent appearance.
3) A response by the NATO governments (principly those in the EU) to be seen as doing something to alleviate the suffering of the Kosovar population. A response that dragged the US in (although it was convenient timing for Willy)
I was being completely sincere when I expressed a desire to share a bottle with you. I think we could have a dandy conversation.
Establishing some kind of uniform response or doctrine to incidents, that factored in morality and justice, seems nigh on to impossible to me. Although I get, and to some point agree, with your assertions it is virtually undoable. Perhaps in macro or as a broad brush guideline but in the "real world" I just can't see it.
Changing social mores, the realpolitik of the day, and the infinite number of ways that incidents present themselves make my head spin. There are certain timeless and unchanging truths. For instance those that the US declaration of independance finds "self-evident". But too often in incidents of this nature they are not applicable, unworkable or political suicide.
We live in a world where the mores and sensibilities that one nation state, ethnic group, or socio-economic class finds inherrent to "humanity", as they know it, may be totaly alien and even repugnant to any number of others. We would have to be far more homogennous in thought and situation to employ a "moral" system of responses as nations.
On the Yugoslavia issue. I disagree. Although I would hesitate to use the world moral, I don't think the events that took place resulted for the reasons you stated. In fact I think the intentions were threefold.
1) To destablize the Milosovic regime.
2) To justify the continued existance of NATO while shedding its impotent appearance.
3) A response by the NATO governments (principly those in the EU) to be seen as doing something to alleviate the suffering of the Kosovar population. A response that dragged the US in (although it was convenient timing for Willy)
I was being completely sincere when I expressed a desire to share a bottle with you. I think we could have a dandy conversation.
Sparky Kronkite
Spam Eater Extraordinare'
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Posts
- 8,921
SB and Exp.....
Are both, right on here.
Attempting to keep the globe liveable for the "naturally good majority" can not involve completly moralistic decisions on leaders parts.
Sometimes, for the good of the majority, you must throw the baby out with the bathwater and then - try to keep it a secret.
If you don't - chaos. Hey, don't I like chaos?
Are both, right on here.
Attempting to keep the globe liveable for the "naturally good majority" can not involve completly moralistic decisions on leaders parts.
Sometimes, for the good of the majority, you must throw the baby out with the bathwater and then - try to keep it a secret.
If you don't - chaos. Hey, don't I like chaos?
My friends: Expertise and Sparky
To Expertise,
Yes, I agree with you. It seems to me that objectively a world of Utopian values must be impossible to achieve. Surely in a plural world the idea is itself contradictory because the Valhalla of the Germans is necessarily different to the ideal future life of the French; and the paradise of the Muslims is not the same as the heaven of the Christians.This is part of the moral dilemma - part of what moral reletavism stands for. Yes, Expertise, I am sure that you must be right.
Also,to Sparky,
I like the "baby and the bathwater" analogy - but if what you say is true (and the great contempory philosopher Isiah Berlin - who until very recently lectured at Oxford - has a similar view to yours)then to achieve utilitarianism it is necessary to sacrifice a few for the greater benefit of the majority. But that takes us nowhere - look at Adolf Eichman's "final solution" - the cost is too high. To make such an omlette, Sparky, there is surely no limit to the number of eggs that should be broken..... and the problem with breaking eggs, it seems to me, is that it is easy to get into the habit of breaking them - all the while the omlette remains invisible. This is the moral paradox of utilitarianism, the ideology upon which modern liberalism is based - and indeed democracy.
To Expertise,
Yes, I agree with you. It seems to me that objectively a world of Utopian values must be impossible to achieve. Surely in a plural world the idea is itself contradictory because the Valhalla of the Germans is necessarily different to the ideal future life of the French; and the paradise of the Muslims is not the same as the heaven of the Christians.This is part of the moral dilemma - part of what moral reletavism stands for. Yes, Expertise, I am sure that you must be right.
Also,to Sparky,
I like the "baby and the bathwater" analogy - but if what you say is true (and the great contempory philosopher Isiah Berlin - who until very recently lectured at Oxford - has a similar view to yours)then to achieve utilitarianism it is necessary to sacrifice a few for the greater benefit of the majority. But that takes us nowhere - look at Adolf Eichman's "final solution" - the cost is too high. To make such an omlette, Sparky, there is surely no limit to the number of eggs that should be broken..... and the problem with breaking eggs, it seems to me, is that it is easy to get into the habit of breaking them - all the while the omlette remains invisible. This is the moral paradox of utilitarianism, the ideology upon which modern liberalism is based - and indeed democracy.
Sparky Kronkite
Spam Eater Extraordinare'
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Posts
- 8,921
final solutions...
are, well final. Hard to keep that a secret. As for getting used to, easier to - breaking more and more eggs - yes that is a problem. That's whey the quality of leadership is so important. It is a balancing act for sure - but it must be attempted because - for now - our current "place" in time and reality - it's the only game in town - that logically (or illogically if you must) can be played. Things, "our place, our realities" will change and hopefully this way of thinking will pass, via necessity. But, not yet, not now.Too many idiots poluting the gene pool.
are, well final. Hard to keep that a secret. As for getting used to, easier to - breaking more and more eggs - yes that is a problem. That's whey the quality of leadership is so important. It is a balancing act for sure - but it must be attempted because - for now - our current "place" in time and reality - it's the only game in town - that logically (or illogically if you must) can be played. Things, "our place, our realities" will change and hopefully this way of thinking will pass, via necessity. But, not yet, not now.Too many idiots poluting the gene pool.
Sparky, have you ever told us about yourself? I would be interested to hear about you. Otherwise just refer me to the thread if you have already told us.
Expertise - yes, we must have a bottle or two together. I am sure that we have much to talk about. Where do you live?
Expertise - yes, we must have a bottle or two together. I am sure that we have much to talk about. Where do you live?
Thumper
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2000
- Posts
- 4,184
The biggest casualty
.....of war is civility. You cannot win a war by being civil hence the civilized must revert to barbarity to survive.
We will and probably already do know who is responsible for this attack. How we know and what we know may never be revealed as this would jeopardize our sources. Our response will be determined by the character of the attackers...
Who knows maybe Armageddon is near....I got my lawn chair and a six pack...let's watch the fireworks...
CL...I am with you I want peace, I don't understand why the Jews and Muslims and Christians can't simply share the "City of Peace" as a common ground...
Just food for thought here...not taking sides...but isn't more barbaric to use guns grenades and rockets against people throwing rocks? The Israeli's claim the Palestinians are barbarians yet look at the casualty counts...
something smells of lox here...
Maybe ...just maybe Israel knew how the Palestinians would respond to Sharon's "visit" and orchestrated it to get out of the peace agreement...
Hey...I can have a conspiracy theory if I want...and mine's cooler than the vitamin, garlic and onion incident!
.....of war is civility. You cannot win a war by being civil hence the civilized must revert to barbarity to survive.
We will and probably already do know who is responsible for this attack. How we know and what we know may never be revealed as this would jeopardize our sources. Our response will be determined by the character of the attackers...
Who knows maybe Armageddon is near....I got my lawn chair and a six pack...let's watch the fireworks...
CL...I am with you I want peace, I don't understand why the Jews and Muslims and Christians can't simply share the "City of Peace" as a common ground...
Just food for thought here...not taking sides...but isn't more barbaric to use guns grenades and rockets against people throwing rocks? The Israeli's claim the Palestinians are barbarians yet look at the casualty counts...
something smells of lox here...
Maybe ...just maybe Israel knew how the Palestinians would respond to Sharon's "visit" and orchestrated it to get out of the peace agreement...
Hey...I can have a conspiracy theory if I want...and mine's cooler than the vitamin, garlic and onion incident!
Canary Islands sounds good.
Our politicians over here the habit of blurting out rhetoric without thinking of the consquences. For example, on Thursday last week our Deputy President (Zuma) told the world that SA supports president Mugabe's land grab. The result, our currency reached an all-time low. Result of that - interest rates are going up later this week. And so then this morning the President (Mbeki)tells the world that Zuma was wrong. Result of the conflicting versions is the mutual destruction of all trust. Result of that is a lack of confidence which in turn caused our currency to plummet even further.
Fuck, I am tired of this third world crap.
The canary islands sounds great! Now let me find an icon to show how I really feel inside.
Our politicians over here the habit of blurting out rhetoric without thinking of the consquences. For example, on Thursday last week our Deputy President (Zuma) told the world that SA supports president Mugabe's land grab. The result, our currency reached an all-time low. Result of that - interest rates are going up later this week. And so then this morning the President (Mbeki)tells the world that Zuma was wrong. Result of the conflicting versions is the mutual destruction of all trust. Result of that is a lack of confidence which in turn caused our currency to plummet even further.
Fuck, I am tired of this third world crap.
The canary islands sounds great! Now let me find an icon to show how I really feel inside.
CreamyLady
Uncompromising Visionary
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2000
- Posts
- 2,685
Well, Thumper, good lox doesn't smell, but this situation certainly stinks.
As I stated before, for true peace everyone involved will have to be stricken with total amnesia regarding past atrocities. There is plenty of blame on both sides, and it would be nice -- since amnesia is iffy -- if everyone would just claim a piece of it, get past it, and move forward.
I don't see this happening, so one has to appeal to Higher Powers. I'll just keep up my peacenik chant. It's a beautiful chant, soothing, and hopefully Somebody is listening.
As I stated before, for true peace everyone involved will have to be stricken with total amnesia regarding past atrocities. There is plenty of blame on both sides, and it would be nice -- since amnesia is iffy -- if everyone would just claim a piece of it, get past it, and move forward.
I don't see this happening, so one has to appeal to Higher Powers. I'll just keep up my peacenik chant. It's a beautiful chant, soothing, and hopefully Somebody is listening.
The crooked timber of humanity
My favourite thinker of all times was a German - Emmanuel Kant. He once said: "Out of the crooked timber of humanity nothing straight was ever made." How much more so now, then when he said it was back then, some 250 years ago?
My favourite thinker of all times was a German - Emmanuel Kant. He once said: "Out of the crooked timber of humanity nothing straight was ever made." How much more so now, then when he said it was back then, some 250 years ago?
Expertise
Omniscient, Omnipotent and Occasionally Charming
- Joined
- Feb 29, 2000
- Posts
- 10,633
I never would have guessed SB *dripping sarcasm*
His works on Moral Dilemmas and Perpetual Peace.... favorites perhaps?
In regards to your quote from him. Did you ever consider that it wasn't necessarily that "deep"?
He was, after all, stooped, five foot "fuck all" with a deformed chest. He could have merely been pissing and moaning about his own condition
Just kidding SB
His works on Moral Dilemmas and Perpetual Peace.... favorites perhaps?
In regards to your quote from him. Did you ever consider that it wasn't necessarily that "deep"?
He was, after all, stooped, five foot "fuck all" with a deformed chest. He could have merely been pissing and moaning about his own condition
Just kidding SB
Expertise, where have you been all my life?
I love his moral 'critiques'(first to third). And then also his own flavour of "critical" idealism. Great guy, huh Expertise? By the way, who is your favourite?
PS: Is that stuff about his physical deform really true?
I love his moral 'critiques'(first to third). And then also his own flavour of "critical" idealism. Great guy, huh Expertise? By the way, who is your favourite?
PS: Is that stuff about his physical deform really true?
Expertise
Omniscient, Omnipotent and Occasionally Charming
- Joined
- Feb 29, 2000
- Posts
- 10,633
Don't Gush SB....
...next thing you kow you'll be wanting me to sit on your lap again.LOL
On the physical deformities yes. He suffered through them and ill health his entire life.
Favorites;
Nietzsche. Although I tend to extend his theories in different "non-nazi" directions.
William James. Especially his work on pragmatism.
John Dewey. His continuation on James' work. His thoughts on morality being relative to individual experience, have significant relevance to the topics we have been discussing this week.
...next thing you kow you'll be wanting me to sit on your lap again.LOL
On the physical deformities yes. He suffered through them and ill health his entire life.
Favorites;
Nietzsche. Although I tend to extend his theories in different "non-nazi" directions.
William James. Especially his work on pragmatism.
John Dewey. His continuation on James' work. His thoughts on morality being relative to individual experience, have significant relevance to the topics we have been discussing this week.
I don't know much about Dewey at all (except that he taught at Columbia). As for James - isn't he more of a psychologist than a philosopher (that is if he is the same James of the theory that "we don't cry because we feel sad but rather we feel sad because we cry"). Is that him?
Hey, they are both Americans *looks upward* Is that just a coincidence, or are you being patriotic again??
Hey, they are both Americans *looks upward* Is that just a coincidence, or are you being patriotic again??
Expertise
Omniscient, Omnipotent and Occasionally Charming
- Joined
- Feb 29, 2000
- Posts
- 10,633
Canadian SB, Canadian. We haven't all been assimilated by yet
Bite your tongue SB. Patriotic for 'mericans. We could have a repeat of Paardeburg here my friend.
He was, in my view a synthesis, of psychologist/philosopher. As you know there is more than a little overlap in those areas
Bite your tongue SB. Patriotic for 'mericans. We could have a repeat of Paardeburg here my friend.
He was, in my view a synthesis, of psychologist/philosopher. As you know there is more than a little overlap in those areas
Similar threads
