Response and Comments to Amicus and his dislike of all minorities:

[Pure]

someday

ami will have to explain to us why he celebrates sacrifices of US soldiers in WWII, Vietnam, and Iraq, for the common good: in two senses: the individual soldiers' bravery in making the sacrifice, and the US leaders' correctness in ordering the soldiers to fight and sacrifice themselves.

But he thinks 'altruism,' any form of 'sacrifice to the herd' is an evil, a sleazy liberalpinko plot, etc.

 

[amicus]

ami will have to explain to us why he celebrates sacrifices of US soldiers in WWII, Vietnam, and Iraq, for the common good: in two senses: the individual soldiers' bravery in making the sacrifice, and the US leaders' correctness in ordering the soldiers to fight and sacrifice themselves.

But he thinks 'altruism,' any form of 'sacrifice to the herd' is an evil, a sleazy liberalpinko plot, etc.[/QUOTE]

~~~

Protecting what you value, cherish and love is not a sacrifice, Pure, I would have thought you knew that.

Tens of thousands of Police and Firemen risk their lives each day for your safety. Tens of Millions of men and women over the years have volunteered their services for that which they value as a rational self interest; a free nation.

In a free society, a free man freely acts of his own volition to protect those he loves and the property that sustains them. There is no act of self sacrifice or altruism involved, merely rational self interest.

Buy you books and buy you books...



Amicus

 

[vrosej10]

I don't agree with what you say Amicus and I think you do yourself no favours by saying it, but I defend your right to speak. The only caveat is that if you say shit this provocative, you fucking well better be prepared to defend yourself.

 

[amicus]

Down under, eh? And you find an expression of freedom and individualism provocative?

I thought the prison dump of Australia outgrew that generations ago, guess not.

Amicus

 

[SimonBrooke]

I don't agree with what you say Amicus and I think you do yourself no favours by saying it, but I defend your right to speak. The only caveat is that if you say shit this provocative, you fucking well better be prepared to defend yourself.

He may have a right to speak, but the rest of us have a right not to listen. The main purpose of threads like this, in my opinion, is to hone your 'ignore' list. The man's 'redeeming features' list make King John look rather angelic.

 

[amicus]

Is Scotland still a nanny state sucking Britains hind teat? Sure sounds that way as you join with your down under buddy to criticize yet offer nothing of substance.

I have an acquaintance in Edinburgh; we have been speaking off and on for several years so I am a little aware of the intellectual poverty of your nation and the true nanny welfare State you have become.

It does not surprise me that you bridle when someone reminds you of the freedom you are too cowardly to grasp.

That is where your anger arises from, the hatred of those who are free and know it.

Amicus...

 

[vrosej10]

He may have a right to speak, but the rest of us have a right not to listen. The main purpose of threads like this, in my opinion, is to hone your 'ignore' list. The man's 'redeeming features' list make King John look rather angelic.

Exactly. The right not to listen is the same as the right to speak. He's obviously a nimrod, because he just attacked me for defending his right to speak.

 

[amicus]

I need a freakin Ozzie to defend my right to free speech?

My complaint was that you offer nothing of substance, nothing to add to a thread besides an expression of your dislike...who asked you anyway?

Amicus

 

[vrosej10]

I need a freakin Ozzie to defend my right to free speech?

My complaint was that you offer nothing of substance, nothing to add to a thread besides an expression of your dislike...who asked you anyway?

Amicus

Your just bitchin cause you talk shit and no one agrees with you. What you really want is a sycophant who'll stick to your side like a parasitic fish and just go along with you. If you force you opinions down people's throats, be prepared for them to throw back up on your feet

 

[Pure]

thanks, ami,

pure asked:

ami will have to explain to us why he celebrates sacrifices of US soldiers in WWII, Vietnam, and Iraq, for the common good: in two senses: the individual soldiers' bravery in making the sacrifice, and the US leaders' correctness in ordering the soldiers to fight and sacrifice themselves.

But he thinks 'altruism,' any form of 'sacrifice to the herd' is an evil, a sleazy liberalpinko plot, etc.

~~~

ami repliedProtecting what you value, cherish and love is not a sacrifice, Pure, I would have thought you knew that.

Tens of thousands of Police and Firemen risk their lives each day for your safety. Tens of Millions of men and women over the years have volunteered their services for that which they value as a rational self interest; a free nation.

In a free society, a free man freely acts of his own volition to protect those he loves and the property that sustains them. There is no act of self sacrifice or altruism involved, merely rational self interest.
==

ok, ami, got that: personal voluntary acts for others' good are fine with you. but you have one little problem i alluded to in my post.

taking WWII and Vietnam, for example, there was a draft; conscripts were ordered to fight, and lots of them died [40,000 in VN]. i'm pretty sure you believe, as i said in my post, that the US leaders' acted rightly in ordering conscripts to face possible death for the common good. [those whose patriotism, shall we say was a bit lacking] correct me if i've misread you.


(Rand was consistent in opposing the draft for the Vietnam war. i suspect you were/are not.)

===

 

[Pure]

Back to the thread topic.

Ami and minorities.

What about the white minority?

Our local racially minded psych prof (Rushton}says that that races, as fare as general smarts, IQ, go are ranked as follows:

Asians
White
Blacks.

Do you concede the superiority of the Chinese students in the US.
Since they tend to dominate in medical schools, do you favor any special protections [e.g. saved admissions spots for less gifted whites] for the less smart, white minority?

Are you ok with med school classes being 40% asian, while their population percentage is surely less than 10 %?

 

[amicus]

But he thinks 'altruism,' any form of 'sacrifice to the herd' is an evil, a sleazy liberalpinko plot, etc.

~~~

ami repliedProtecting what you value, cherish and love is not a sacrifice, Pure, I would have thought you knew that.

Tens of thousands of Police and Firemen risk their lives each day for your safety. Tens of Millions of men and women over the years have volunteered their services for that which they value as a rational self interest; a free nation.

In a free society, a free man freely acts of his own volition to protect those he loves and the property that sustains them. There is no act of self sacrifice or altruism involved, merely rational self interest.
==

ok, ami, got that:

"ok, got that:", I suppose that is supposed to accept my rebuttal of 'Altruism', as accepted and a tip of the hat for the veracity of the statement. That is about the best one ever gets from the left.

I volunteered for Naval Service, there was no Conscription at that time.

I am totally opposed to any kind of forced or mandated or 'drafted' service to any government.

As for your next inquiry in Post #211, I think, (last time I scrolled back to look, I lost this page)... Two of my last three Primary Care Physicians were not Americans, one was from India, a woman and the second, from the Philippines, a man, was Asian.

Your tongue in cheek assessment of Intelligence Quotients as they apply to ethnic groups, is accurate and no, I do not advocate affirmative action for any ethnic or racial group.

A core belief among the left seems to favor forced equality by quota systems for both ethnic and gender minorities. There seems to be an unspoken, 'righteous' agreement that it is more humane to totally equalize individuals by limiting the best and brightest and rewarding the less able.

I have never understood that malady, nor do I now.

Amicus

 

[Pure]

ami I am totally opposed to any kind of forced or mandated or 'drafted' service to any government.

pure: you are saying you opposed the draft during wwii, korea, and vietnam.

i wish i could believe you. does anyone believe ami was going around in the mid 60s, the height of the war against communist aggression and saying "the draft is unjust" ! or further, like Ayn Rand, questioning the war's rationale and necessity?

as per the article below, 1.5 million were inducted during the Korean War, and in Viet Nam, about a third were inductees. BESIDES that General Hershey estimated that "volunteers" were obtained in equally great numbers, because of the threat of the draft. (you 'volunteered' so you would get a better assignment than if you were drafted.)

wiki: Between the Korean War's outbreak in June 1950 and 1953, however, Selective Service inducted 1,529,539 men. [7] Another 1.3 million volunteered. [8] Most joined the Navy and Air Force. [4] Congress passed the Universal Military Training and Service Act in 1951 to meet the demands of the war. It lowered the induction age to 18½ and extended active-duty service commitments to 24 months. Despite the early combat failures and later stalemate in Korea, the draft has been credited by some as playing a vital role in turning the tide of war.[4] A February 1953 Gallup Poll showed 70 percent of Americans surveyed felt the SSS handled the draft fairly. Notably, the demographic including all draft age men (males 21 to 29) reported 64 percent believed the draft to be fair. [11]

To increase equity in the system, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed an executive order on July 11, 1953 that ended the paternity deferment for married men.[12] In large part, the change in the draft served the purposes of the burgeoning Cold War. From a program that had just barely passed Congressional muster during the fearful prelude to World War II, a more robust draft continued as fears now focused on the Soviet threat. Nevertheless, some dissenting voices in Congress continued to appeal to the history of voluntary American military service as preferable for a democracy.[13] [14]

The United States breathed easier with the Korean Armistice in 1953; however, technology brought new promises and threats. U.S. air and nuclear power fueled the Eisenhower doctrine of "massive retaliation." This strategy demanded more machines and fewer foot soldiers, so the draft slipped to the back burner. However, the head of the SSS, Maj. Gen. Hershey, urged caution fearing the conflict looming in Vietnam. In May 1953, he told his state directors to do everything possible to keep SSS alive in order to meet upcoming needs.[15]

Following the Armistice, Congress passed the Reserve Forces Act of 1955 with the aim of improving National Guard and federal reserve readiness while also constraining its use by the president. Towards this end, it mandated a six-year service commitment, in a combination of reserve and active duty time, for every line military member regardless of their means of entry. Meanwhile, the SSS kept itself alive by devising and managing a complex system of deferments for a swelling pool of candidates during a period of shrinking requirements. The greatest challenge to the draft came not from protestors but rather lobbyists seeking additional deferments for their constituency groups such as scientists and farmers.[5]

Government leaders felt the potential for a draft was a critical element in maintaining a constant flow of volunteers. On numerous occasions Gen. Hershey told Congress for every man drafted, three or four more were scared into volunteering.[16] Assuming his assessment was accurate, this would mean over 11 million men volunteered for service because of the draft between January 1954 and April 1975.[4]

The policy of using the draft as a club to force "voluntary" enlistment was unique in U.S. history. Previous drafts had not aimed at encouraging individuals to sign up in order to gain preferential placement or less dangerous postings. However, the incremental buildup of Vietnam without a clear threat to the country bolstered this.[4] Some estimates suggest conscription encompassed almost one-third of all eligible men during the period of 1965-69.[17][18] This group represented those without exemption or resources to avoid military service.

During the active combat phase, the possibility of avoiding combat by selecting their service and military specialty led as many as four out of 11 million eligible men to enlist.[19] [20] The military relied upon this draft-induced[citation needed] volunteerism to make its quotas, especially the Army, which accounted for nearly 95 percent of all inductees during Vietnam. For example, defense recruiting reports show 34% of the recruits in 1964 up to 50% in 1970 indicated they joined to avoid adverse placement via the draft.[21] [22][23].

 

[Pure]

ami on race

ami Your tongue in cheek assessment of Intelligence Quotients as they apply to ethnic groups, is accurate

i pure, had said,

//Our local racially minded psych prof (Rushton}says that that races, as fare as general smarts, IQ, go are ranked as follows:

Asians
White
Blacks.

Do you concede the superiority of the Chinese students in the US.//


so with respect to the asians (chinese japanese), you admit the whites are an intellectually inferior race.

but in the rest of your post, you say you don't favor any measures to protect the white race dominance in the US; if chinese end up running the show, you have no problem.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The chinks are terrific appliance operators but fail when it comes to innovation and creativity. They cant solve their way out of a wet paper bag, so to speak. They remind me of mechanical toys.

 

[lance gt]

.....

 

[lance gt]

The chinks are terrific appliance operators but fail when it comes to innovation and creativity. They cant solve their way out of a wet paper bag, so to speak. They remind me of mechanical toys.

Not to get into any arguements JBJ, but that statement is totally wrong. The Chinese were the first to practice medicine, they were the first to write, made gunpowder, built a gyroscopic direction finder with a differential axle, made a precision clock that also told of seasons and moon cycles, built the Great Wall, learned chromium plating, among other tecnical feats, all thousands of years ahead of everyone else. They saw the rest of the world using their inventions and making money from them. You state they aren't innovative and creative, they learned to sit back, let everyone else struggle to design and make things and then they make them cheaper and make more money. Now that's using their heads.

 

[Pure]

does anyone seriously believe ami was going around in the late 60s, the height of the Vietnam war --against "communist aggression'' -- saying "the draft is unjust; stop it! "

among other 'statist' --anti-individual rights--measures favored by ami is the holding of a US citizen (apprhehended in the US) without charges, for years, in a Naval Brig (Padilla).

 

[amicus]

There did exist, at one time, thousands of hours of magnetic audio tape containing the contents of my radio programs in Honolulu and Portland, Oregon, perhaps they have been digitized, I really don't know.

Some of them were aired on Radio Hanoi, among them one of me calling for nuclear weapons to be used on Hanoi and several that stated forced enlistment, the draft, was Unconstitutional and immoral.

And your other piss ant point, one you have harped on for years; you believe in granting foreign combatants American civil protections and I do not. Simple as that yet you refuse to accept a different point of view and insist you are right when you are not.

Amicus

 

[Boxlicker101]

Not to get into any arguements JBJ, but that statement is totally wrong. The Chinese were the first to practice medicine, they were the first to write, made gunpowder, built a gyroscopic direction finder with a differential axle, made a precision clock that also told of seasons and moon cycles, built the Great Wall, learned chromium plating, among other tecnical feats, all thousands of years ahead of everyone else. They saw the rest of the world using their inventions and making money from them. You state they aren't innovative and creative, they learned to sit back, let everyone else struggle to design and make things and then they make them cheaper and make more money. Now that's using their heads.

Without making any effort to defend JBJ or anything he says or implies, those inventions were all hundreds or thousands of years ago.

They don't innovate now. As you say, they copy what others have done and make things cheaper using slave labor and shoddy materials. Haven't you heard lately about pet food made in China and containing poison or other cheap products that injure or poison the person using them?

 

[Boxlicker101]

There did exist, at one time, thousands of hours of magnetic audio tape containing the contents of my radio programs in Honolulu and Portland, Oregon, perhaps they have been digitized, I really don't know.

Some of them were aired on Radio Hanoi, among them one of me calling for nuclear weapons to be used on Hanoi and several that stated forced enlistment, the draft, was Unconstitutional and immoral.

And your other piss ant point, one you have harped on for years; you believe in granting foreign combatants American civil protections and I do not. Simple as that yet you refuse to accept a different point of view and insist you are right when you are not.

Amicus

Just to keep things straight, the "foreign combatants" you refer to are not enemy soldiers. If they were, they would be entitled to protection under the Geneva Convention. They are armed civilians, such as have always been treated as criminals, and they hide in the civilian population. They are not entitled to any protection whatsoever, not even the right to be hanged by a new rope.

 

[amicus]

You will never read about it and it will not be spoken of, but the left's insistence on treating foreign terrorists as if they were mere criminals and subject to the US version of due process, has already had an effect.

Captured, civilian terrorists will no longer be interrogated in the US, nor housed in prisons here. Would you like to venture a guess as to their lifespan and treatment now?

Because of this tempest in a teapot, I would also venture to say that the press will never again have access to Abu Graib like prisons or enjoy being 'embedded' with Coalition troops.

It took a while but even the Grunts have learned that the press cannot be trusted.

Amicus