I was reading a rather good Spectator article from last week. The sentence I liked most was that Obama spending levels financed from Tea Party tax levels will not stand and will ruin the country if left alone.
Based on that (the simple fact that you either have welfare, or low taxes, both is not possible) the article raised the point that it may very well be that next year's US election be akin to the one in 1860: it will be a decision on what road that nation will take.
Discuss.
This all fits in with the moralism as driver of conflict in the USA theory that I sort of have some sympathy for. Add 1932 to that list.
FUCK YEAH
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F_6WWnY7l5vz8%2FSVj0J0pM1OI%2FAAAAAAAAEZ8%2FSn9MMyZfKrM%2Fs400%2FUSA_disintegrated.gif&hash=51aaefd45754a85d5a3cde622107a724df474a3f)
Nonsense, unless one side sweeps the election, ie, wins the white house, the house of reps with a decent majority, and at least 60 seats in the senate, we are going to get gridlock just like we have now. There will not be a chance of major changes, and mostly the two parties fighting out what gets cut from a bloated deficit (including through tax increases).
FWIW, the democrats have almost no chance to pick up seats in the Senate, because in 2006 they dominated and thus have almost all the contestable seats up for election already. The republicans are in the minority and would need to pick up almost 15 seats of the 33 or so up in the senate, which just won't happen. So basically major changes are probably going to have to wait until at least 2014. And even then, the public increasingly does not respect either party platform. If either side gets control of the legislature and white house (as Obama did at the beginning), there is almost certain to be a major backlash in the next election.
And retard map shows up again
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 10, 2011, 05:01:31 PM
And retard map shows up again
If you just learn to accept the inevitable instead of fear it, things will go a lot more smoothly for you.
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 05:06:02 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 10, 2011, 05:01:31 PM
And retard map shows up again
If you just learn to accept the inevitable instead of fear it, things will go a lot more smoothly for you.
I accept that notion the map is fucking retarded.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 10, 2011, 05:10:19 PM
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 05:06:02 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 10, 2011, 05:01:31 PM
And retard map shows up again
If you just learn to accept the inevitable instead of fear it, things will go a lot more smoothly for you.
I accept that notion the map is fucking retarded.
I agree that it's a bit silly to think southern california will go anywhere but mexico, yeah. Retarded is a bit strongly worded, though.
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 05:12:56 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 10, 2011, 05:10:19 PM
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 05:06:02 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 10, 2011, 05:01:31 PM
And retard map shows up again
If you just learn to accept the inevitable instead of fear it, things will go a lot more smoothly for you.
I accept that notion the map is fucking retarded.
I agree that it's a bit silly to think southern california will go anywhere but mexico, yeah. Retarded is a bit strongly worded, though.
The map has downs syndrome, and everybody that reposts it eats paste.
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 03:37:58 PM
FUCK YEAH
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F_6WWnY7l5vz8%2FSVj0J0pM1OI%2FAAAAAAAAEZ8%2FSn9MMyZfKrM%2Fs400%2FUSA_disintegrated.gif&hash=51aaefd45754a85d5a3cde622107a724df474a3f)
Brain likes paste.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.historyplace.com%2Fcivilwar%2Fcwar-pix%2Fcivmap.gif&hash=8bd02b842e7314035d75ef2890804d5ac5813e96)
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 05:06:02 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 10, 2011, 05:01:31 PM
And retard map shows up again
If you just learn to accept the inevitable instead of fear it, things will go a lot more smoothly for you.
We aren't Scandinavians. Half our country doesn't just walk off.
Quote from: Tamas on August 10, 2011, 03:26:57 PM
I was reading a rather good Spectator article from last week. The sentence I liked most was that Obama spending levels financed from Tea Party tax levels will not stand and will ruin the country if left alone.
Based on that (the simple fact that you either have welfare, or low taxes, both is not possible) the article raised the point that it may very well be that next year's US election be akin to the one in 1860: it will be a decision on what road that nation will take.
Discuss.
To some degree I agree with what you say - it will be an important election; does the USA want to go left or right? However, I think the comparison with 1860 is highly superfluous since it implies something as catastrophic as a civil war.
Quote from: Siege on August 10, 2011, 06:06:30 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.historyplace.com%2Fcivilwar%2Fcwar-pix%2Fcivmap.gif&hash=8bd02b842e7314035d75ef2890804d5ac5813e96)
WTF is up with that map? The WESTERN TERRITORIES were still part of the United States.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 10, 2011, 06:58:44 PM
Quote from: Siege on August 10, 2011, 06:06:30 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.historyplace.com%2Fcivilwar%2Fcwar-pix%2Fcivmap.gif&hash=8bd02b842e7314035d75ef2890804d5ac5813e96)
WTF is up with that map? The WESTERN TERRITORIES were still part of the United States.
Didn't those areas not have statehood granted?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2011, 06:32:08 PM
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 05:06:02 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 10, 2011, 05:01:31 PM
And retard map shows up again
If you just learn to accept the inevitable instead of fear it, things will go a lot more smoothly for you.
We aren't Scandinavians. Half our country doesn't just walk off.
Which is a bit disturbing, given that you popularly claim to have invented modern democracy, yet have such a hatred for self-determination.
The Swedish monarchy meanwhile, or in American terms old world despotism, managed to settle a nationalist independence movement without a single shot fired.
Funny how things work out.
Even funnier how you also cheered on the Kosovo rebellion.
I guess as the old saying goes, everything is so big in America that double-standards simply aren't enough. You need tripple-standards. Preferably super-sized.
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 05:06:02 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 10, 2011, 05:01:31 PM
And retard map shows up again
If you just learn to accept the inevitable instead of fear it, things will go a lot more smoothly for you.
Seems intellectually lazy. If the US splits it won't be conveniently upon old state lines.
Quote from: garbon on August 10, 2011, 07:08:56 PM
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 05:06:02 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 10, 2011, 05:01:31 PM
And retard map shows up again
If you just learn to accept the inevitable instead of fear it, things will go a lot more smoothly for you.
Seems intellectually lazy. If the US splits it won't be conveniently upon old state lines.
Look. He's a professor. Are
you a professor?
Quote from: Palisadoes on August 10, 2011, 07:03:51 PM
Didn't those areas not have statehood granted?
Nope. Still territories.
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 07:10:54 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 10, 2011, 07:08:56 PM
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 05:06:02 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 10, 2011, 05:01:31 PM
And retard map shows up again
If you just learn to accept the inevitable instead of fear it, things will go a lot more smoothly for you.
Seems intellectually lazy. If the US splits it won't be conveniently upon old state lines.
Look. He's a professor. Are you a professor?
I am.
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 07:06:53 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2011, 06:32:08 PM
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 05:06:02 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 10, 2011, 05:01:31 PM
And retard map shows up again
If you just learn to accept the inevitable instead of fear it, things will go a lot more smoothly for you.
We aren't Scandinavians. Half our country doesn't just walk off.
Which is a bit disturbing, given that you popularly claim to have invented modern democracy, yet have such a hatred for self-determination.
The Swedish monarchy meanwhile, or in American terms old world despotism, managed to settle a nationalist independence movement without a single shot fired.
Funny how things work out.
Even funnier how you also cheered on the Kosovo rebellion.
I guess as the old saying goes, everything is so big in America that double-standards simply aren't enough. You need tripple-standards. Preferably super-sized.
Self-determination is an abomination. There are times when rebellion against the government is justified, e.g. Kosovo, but self-determination is not sufficient in itself.
This is why the Scots are scum, free-riding on the stability the UK has provided them, the geological resources they've lucked into, and the defensive umbrella of the Royal Navy. I hope if the independence movement ever wins a referendum, the UK simply glasses Edinburgh with a Trident.
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 07:10:54 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 10, 2011, 07:08:56 PM
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 05:06:02 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 10, 2011, 05:01:31 PM
And retard map shows up again
If you just learn to accept the inevitable instead of fear it, things will go a lot more smoothly for you.
Seems intellectually lazy. If the US splits it won't be conveniently upon old state lines.
Look. He's a professor. Are you a professor?
Sure.
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 07:06:53 PM
Which is a bit disturbing, given that you popularly claim to have invented modern democracy, yet have such a hatred for self-determination.
The Swedish monarchy meanwhile, or in American terms old world despotism, managed to settle a nationalist independence movement without a single shot fired.
Funny how things work out.
Even funnier how you also cheered on the Kosovo rebellion.
I guess as the old saying goes, everything is so big in America that double-standards simply aren't enough. You need tripple-standards. Preferably super-sized.
What you don't understand is that Americans have balls. Something sadly lacking amongst European males.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 10, 2011, 07:13:08 PM
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 07:06:53 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2011, 06:32:08 PM
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 05:06:02 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 10, 2011, 05:01:31 PM
And retard map shows up again
If you just learn to accept the inevitable instead of fear it, things will go a lot more smoothly for you.
We aren't Scandinavians. Half our country doesn't just walk off.
Which is a bit disturbing, given that you popularly claim to have invented modern democracy, yet have such a hatred for self-determination.
The Swedish monarchy meanwhile, or in American terms old world despotism, managed to settle a nationalist independence movement without a single shot fired.
Funny how things work out.
Even funnier how you also cheered on the Kosovo rebellion.
I guess as the old saying goes, everything is so big in America that double-standards simply aren't enough. You need tripple-standards. Preferably super-sized.
Self-determination is an abomination. There are times when rebellion against the government is justified, e.g. Kosovo, but self-determination is not sufficient in itself.
This is why the Scots are scum, free-riding on the stability the UK has provided them, the geological resources they've lucked into, and the defensive umbrella of the Royal Navy. I hope if the independence movement ever wins a referendum, the UK simply glasses Edinburgh with a Trident.
So basically, anyone
you think is evil. Don't you think that's a little bit weird? A little bit psycho?
I don't think the Scots are evil (not in the least) but I also don't support their independence.
Why do you love Milosevic, Slargos?
But seriously, I've always found self-determination to be something of a bottomless pit. It claims to have moral backing, but it fails in two respects:
1)its ultimate outcome is anarchy. A planet full of city-states--as trust and mutuality erode, subordinate polities remove themselves from the nation, either because they feel it's best for them, or because they feel that others plan on betraying them first.
2)it is an unforgivable abdication of the government's responsibility to protect its loyal citizens. I should never have to move should 55% of South Carolinians wish to secede.
skane is danish.
Quote from: garbon on August 10, 2011, 07:21:42 PM
I don't think the Scots are evil (not in the least) but I also don't support their independence.
I only use the Scots example because every Scot I have ever spoken to holds to at least one abhorrent idea, relating to their stupid fake nationalism, and often more than one.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 10, 2011, 07:25:07 PM
Why do you love Milosevic, Slargos?
But seriously, I've always found self-determination to be something of a bottomless pit. It claims to have moral backing, but it fails in two respects:
1)its ultimate outcome is anarchy. A planet full of city-states--as trust and mutuality erode, subordinate polities remove themselves from the nation, either because they feel it's best for them, or because they feel that others plan on betraying them first.
2)it is an unforgivable abdication of the government's responsibility to protect its loyal citizens.
My feelings on the Serbs are mixed.
On the one hand, they're Slavs and as we all know all Slavs must be purged with hellfire.
Oh the other hand, they are the enemies of the Austrians and as we all know the only good kind of papist German is a dead papist German.
On the one hand, they enjoy murdering muslims. Self-explanatory.
Oh the other hand, they are filthy, criminal, minister murdering, mafiosi swine.
To get back to the subject at hand, you make two reasonable (insufficient, but reasonable) arguments against self-determination, but frankly they are also sufficient argument against Kosovar autonomy. The Serbian population certainly suffered from the autonomy. Is this a matter of utilitarianism? The greater good? What if the greater good was served by an independent Confederacy? Even if we consider the opinions of non-citizens when determining this great good, were there more slaves than there were Southerners who felt that secession was necessary?
I'm glad that you made that edit btw, and I expect you to demand Kosovo returned to Serbia presently.
When a government is illegitimate or becomes illegitimate, rebellion is proper and at a certain extremity morally obligatory.
Secession is a more limited set than rebellion, and has some problems--say the North had seceded from the United States instead, in protest over slavery. Given their clear ability to destroy the government of the remaining "United States," they have arguably abandoned their duty to their fellow citizens.
A case like Kosovo or East Timor is more nuanced; there is little hope that Kosovo or Timor could ever affect change over the entire state, so secession becomes a moral option.
The Serbian population deserved to suffer. They'd been nothing but bullies and Nazis since the breakup of Yugoslavia, fighting people that no one but a Yugoslav could tell a difference between. Indeed, the Yugoslavs themselves make a strong case against secessionary politics.
:lmfao:
What really cracks me up is how you get away with that kind of reasoning.
Collective guilt? Really?
How are you not defending anarchy when you determine that any population may rebel as long as they determine that a government is "morally illegitimate".
Slavery was not illegal.
When a majority passes laws that outlaw the practices of a substantial portion of the population, and attempts to seize their property, how does that not in turn make said government illegitimate by the same reasoning?
You don't have a fucking leg to stand on, yet you scramble for arguments going whichever direction as long as they suit the accepted narrative and as long as they do you have the support of your peers. Congratulations. Malty will be along shortly and point out that consistency is narrowminded. Minsky will undoubtedly support you with some argument about natural law trumping all other concerns, and Neil will add how evil Serbs are and how they deserved what they got. And I will laugh.
The truth is you and a lot of people in here have moralities of convenience. Anything you think is good goes, and anything you think is icky is out. It's not a double-standard per se. The standard is very one-sided, in fact. Paint the world in arbitrary colours according to your whims.
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 07:49:48 PM
:lmfao:
What really cracks me up is how you get away with that kind of reasoning.
Collective guilt? Really?
How are you not defending anarchy when you determine that any population may rebel as long as they determine that a government is "morally illegitimate".
Slavery was not illegal.
When a majority passes laws that outlaw the practices of a substantial portion of the population, and attempts to seize their property, how does that not in turn make said government illegitimate by the same reasoning?
Moral norms =! laws. You can accuse that of being an "anything I think is wrong" analysis, but that's what morality boils down to anyway, since it's a purely human construction. Utilitarianism is the only moral system that can claim objectivity, but even that sits uneasy without some sort of rights regime (which, happily, tends to increase utility).
Slavery is roundly considered an evil, and was roundly considered an evil
at the time, but the appreciation of its evil does not need to be indexed with a date on the calendar.
I mean, you used to be able to beat your wife until she agreed to let you fuck her. Legal = moral, right?
As for collective guilt, we have talked before, right? I'm Ideologue. I think Bomber Harris was pretty cool.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 10, 2011, 07:55:00 PM
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 07:49:48 PM
:lmfao:
What really cracks me up is how you get away with that kind of reasoning.
Collective guilt? Really?
How are you not defending anarchy when you determine that any population may rebel as long as they determine that a government is "morally illegitimate".
Slavery was not illegal.
When a majority passes laws that outlaw the practices of a substantial portion of the population, and attempts to seize their property, how does that not in turn make said government illegitimate by the same reasoning?
Moral norms =! laws. You can accuse that of being an "anything I think is wrong" analysis, but that's what morality boils down to anyway, since it's a purely human construction. Utilitarianism is the only moral system that can claim objectivity, but even that sits uneasy without some sort of rights regime (which, happily, tends to increase utility).
Slavery is roundly considered an evil, was roundly considered an evil at the time, and the appreciation of its evil does not need to be indexed with a date on the calendar.
I mean, you used to be able to beat your wife until she agreed to let you fuck her. Legal = moral, right?
As for collective guilt, we have talked before, right? I'm Ideologue. I think Bomber Harris was pretty cool.
At least you're man enough to admit that you're just making shit up and that "because I said so" is a sufficient argument.
What do you think morality is, Slargos?
Quote from: Ideologue on August 10, 2011, 08:02:58 PM
What do you think morality is, Slargos?
You're holding an entire people responsible for the actions of a minority, yet deploring me for doing the same. You tell me.
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 08:04:02 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 10, 2011, 08:02:58 PM
What do you think morality is, Slargos?
You're holding an entire people responsible for the actions of a minority, yet deploring me for doing the same. You tell me.
You've implied that mere lawfulness is morality, which is simply a bunch of people (in a democracy, or fewer in another form of government) deciding what
they think is correct, either after consideration or in a fit of pique.
Regarding Serbia. The Serbian government sponsored a campaign of repression in Kosovo, as they had in Bosnia. The Serbian people either supported it directly or acquiesced and supported their government indirectly, through their labors and provision of taxes. While I would not argue for something ridiculous, such as every person in the country be put on trial, during wartime they made themselves targets, and their pain does not trouble me much more than the pain they caused others seemed to trouble them, and no more than the far greater amount of pain the people of Dresden must have experienced.
It does move me to sympathy, but when you acquiesce to an illegitimate government and labor to bolster it, is it reasonable that you are permitted to hide behind civilian status while you abet murder?
As a Swede, of course, this may be a sensitive question.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 10, 2011, 08:12:01 PM
You've implied that mere lawfulness is morality, which is simply a bunch of people (in a democracy, or fewer in another form of government) deciding what they think is correct, either after consideration or in a fit of pique.
Regarding Serbia. The Serbian government sponsored a campaign of repression in Kosovo, as they had in Bosnia. The Serbian people either supported it directly or acquiesced and supported their government indirectly, through their labors and provision of taxes. While I would not argue for something ridiculous, such as every person in the country be put on trial, during wartime they made themselves targets, and their pain does not trouble me much more than the pain they caused others seemed to trouble them, and no more than the far greater amount of pain the people of Dresden must have experienced.
It does move me to sympathy, but when you acquiesce to an illegitimate government and labor to bolster it, is it reasonable that you are permitted to hide behind civilian status while your work abets murder?
Is this one of those concepts that will only fit on a case by case basis as
you determine it appropriate or
moral, or is it a general rule?
Because boy, you're stepping into a minefield.
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 08:15:30 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 10, 2011, 08:12:01 PM
You've implied that mere lawfulness is morality, which is simply a bunch of people (in a democracy, or fewer in another form of government) deciding what they think is correct, either after consideration or in a fit of pique.
Regarding Serbia. The Serbian government sponsored a campaign of repression in Kosovo, as they had in Bosnia. The Serbian people either supported it directly or acquiesced and supported their government indirectly, through their labors and provision of taxes. While I would not argue for something ridiculous, such as every person in the country be put on trial, during wartime they made themselves targets, and their pain does not trouble me much more than the pain they caused others seemed to trouble them, and no more than the far greater amount of pain the people of Dresden must have experienced.
It does move me to sympathy, but when you acquiesce to an illegitimate government and labor to bolster it, is it reasonable that you are permitted to hide behind civilian status while your work abets murder?
Is this one of those concepts that will only fit on a case by case basis as you determine it appropriate or moral, or is it a general rule?
I have generalized rules for what makes a government illegitimate, yes. Conduct-wise, they tend to largely (though not entirely) conform with ius cogens norms, although structurally speaking, international law recognizes governments as legitimate which I do not, e.g. Saudi Arabia.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 10, 2011, 08:21:15 PM
I have generalized rules for what makes a government illegitimate, yes. Conduct-wise, they tend to largely conform with ius cogens norms, although structurally speaking, international law recognizes governments as legitimate which I do not.
And does this only apply to formal governments, or also informal ones?
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 08:24:32 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 10, 2011, 08:21:15 PM
I have generalized rules for what makes a government illegitimate, yes. Conduct-wise, they tend to largely conform with ius cogens norms, although structurally speaking, international law recognizes governments as legitimate which I do not.
And does this only apply to formal governments, or also informal ones?
I suppose both, although if you might clarify, I could answer better. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by informal governments--a statelike entity like the Khmer Rouge or Viet Minh were? Or like the Republic of China?
Quote from: Ideologue on August 10, 2011, 08:26:14 PM
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 08:24:32 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 10, 2011, 08:21:15 PM
I have generalized rules for what makes a government illegitimate, yes. Conduct-wise, they tend to largely conform with ius cogens norms, although structurally speaking, international law recognizes governments as legitimate which I do not.
And does this only apply to formal governments, or also informal ones?
I suppose both, although if you might clarify, I could answer better. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by informal governments--a statelike entity like the Khmer Rouge or Viet Minh were?
That too, sure, but more specifically for instance tribal or religious power structures within a state.
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 08:27:16 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 10, 2011, 08:26:14 PM
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 08:24:32 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 10, 2011, 08:21:15 PM
I have generalized rules for what makes a government illegitimate, yes. Conduct-wise, they tend to largely conform with ius cogens norms, although structurally speaking, international law recognizes governments as legitimate which I do not.
And does this only apply to formal governments, or also informal ones?
I suppose both, although if you might clarify, I could answer better. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by informal governments--a statelike entity like the Khmer Rouge or Viet Minh were?
That too, sure, but more specifically for instance tribal or religious power structures within a state.
Sorry if I'm being obtuse, but an example would be helpful here. I think you might mean something like Iraq? I suppose if you mean an entity which is capable of exercising organized violence, then that entity is also beholden to the same moral analysis, and its members or those whom it claims to represent, by acquiescence, also acquiesce to being identified with the enemy.
Or you might mean, "what do you do in the case of a civil war, especially one largely fought through guerilla combat?", ala Vietnam, in which case I suppose my answer is "identify the enemy and generally err on the side of caution." Was My Lai a war crime? Possibly. But the Christmas bombings were obviously not, and represented what we should have been doing since the beginning, destroying the North Vietnamese state.
Well, assuming that the RVN was worth defending, which it was not. The analysis becomes far more complicated when two illegitimate governments are fighting one another.
And do you believe that the board spellcheck doesn't recognize "guerilla"? That's absurd.
Let's leave that for a moment. You noted earlier that "the Serbian population deserved to suffer" given that they were implicity complicit by virtue of paying taxes. Was this unfortunate hyperbole, or is it also a generally applicable rule?
Why are you bothering arguing with Slargos?
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 08:44:00 PM
Let's leave that for a moment. You noted earlier that "the Serbian population deserved to suffer" given that they were implicity complicit by virtue of paying taxes. Was this unfortunate hyperbole, or is it also a generally applicable rule?
Some hyperbole. I should not have said "deserve to suffer." I don't really think anyone
deserves to suffer (although some people should
die, I don't think inflicting pain for pain's sake is a moral thing to do). However, suffering is a likely consequence of being a viable target in war.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2011, 08:47:58 PM
Why are you bothering arguing with Slargos?
Why do I bother arguing with anyone? You can count the number of people who've changed their minds on the Internet on one hand. But it's fun.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2011, 08:47:58 PM
Why are you bothering arguing with Slargos?
Probably because he at least pretends to have a defensible position while you know that you don't, you little prick. :hug:
Quote from: Ideologue on August 10, 2011, 08:48:15 PM
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 08:44:00 PM
Let's leave that for a moment. You noted earlier that "the Serbian population deserved to suffer" given that they were implicity complicit by virtue of paying taxes. Was this unfortunate hyperbole, or is it also a generally applicable rule?
Some hyperbole. I should not have said "deserve to suffer." I don't really think anyone deserves to suffer (although some people should die, I don't think inflicting pain for pain's sake is a moral thing to do). However, suffering is a likely consequence of being a viable target in war.
So they didn't deserve to suffer, but were a legitimate target on account of being part of a silent but supporting majority. Is this a correct description?
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 08:51:09 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 10, 2011, 08:48:15 PM
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 08:44:00 PM
Let's leave that for a moment. You noted earlier that "the Serbian population deserved to suffer" given that they were implicity complicit by virtue of paying taxes. Was this unfortunate hyperbole, or is it also a generally applicable rule?
Some hyperbole. I should not have said "deserve to suffer." I don't really think anyone deserves to suffer (although some people should die, I don't think inflicting pain for pain's sake is a moral thing to do). However, suffering is a likely consequence of being a viable target in war.
So they didn't deserve to suffer, but were a legitimate target on account of being part of a silent but supporting majority. Is this a correct description?
Yes.
My Spider-sense is tingling.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 10, 2011, 08:12:01 PM
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 08:04:02 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 10, 2011, 08:02:58 PM
What do you think morality is, Slargos?
You're holding an entire people responsible for the actions of a minority, yet deploring me for doing the same. You tell me.
You've implied that mere lawfulness is morality, which is simply a bunch of people (in a democracy, or fewer in another form of government) deciding what they think is correct, either after consideration or in a fit of pique.
Regarding Serbia. The Serbian government sponsored a campaign of repression in Kosovo, as they had in Bosnia. The Serbian people either supported it directly or acquiesced and supported their government indirectly, through their labors and provision of taxes. While I would not argue for something ridiculous, such as every person in the country be put on trial, during wartime they made themselves targets, and their pain does not trouble me much more than the pain they caused others seemed to trouble them, and no more than the far greater amount of pain the people of Dresden must have experienced.
It does move me to sympathy, but when you acquiesce to an illegitimate government and labor to bolster it, is it reasonable that you are permitted to hide behind civilian status while you abet murder?
So then the South was morally justified in their succession because of the brutal US repression of Indians?
I think we can all agree that the US government was illegitimate.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 10, 2011, 08:51:48 PM
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 08:51:09 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 10, 2011, 08:48:15 PM
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 08:44:00 PM
Let's leave that for a moment. You noted earlier that "the Serbian population deserved to suffer" given that they were implicity complicit by virtue of paying taxes. Was this unfortunate hyperbole, or is it also a generally applicable rule?
Some hyperbole. I should not have said "deserve to suffer." I don't really think anyone deserves to suffer (although some people should die, I don't think inflicting pain for pain's sake is a moral thing to do). However, suffering is a likely consequence of being a viable target in war.
So they didn't deserve to suffer, but were a legitimate target on account of being part of a silent but supporting majority. Is this a correct description?
Yes.
My Spider-sense is tingling.
And would this legitimacy extend to targeted reprisals, or just to coincidental attacks according to the established laws of warfare?
Quote from: Neil on August 10, 2011, 08:53:42 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 10, 2011, 08:12:01 PM
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 08:04:02 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 10, 2011, 08:02:58 PM
What do you think morality is, Slargos?
You're holding an entire people responsible for the actions of a minority, yet deploring me for doing the same. You tell me.
You've implied that mere lawfulness is morality, which is simply a bunch of people (in a democracy, or fewer in another form of government) deciding what they think is correct, either after consideration or in a fit of pique.
Regarding Serbia. The Serbian government sponsored a campaign of repression in Kosovo, as they had in Bosnia. The Serbian people either supported it directly or acquiesced and supported their government indirectly, through their labors and provision of taxes. While I would not argue for something ridiculous, such as every person in the country be put on trial, during wartime they made themselves targets, and their pain does not trouble me much more than the pain they caused others seemed to trouble them, and no more than the far greater amount of pain the people of Dresden must have experienced.
It does move me to sympathy, but when you acquiesce to an illegitimate government and labor to bolster it, is it reasonable that you are permitted to hide behind civilian status while you abet murder?
So then the South was morally justified in their succession because of the brutal US repression of Indians?
I think we can all agree that the US government was illegitimate.
Ye fucking premature ejaculator. :mad:
Quote from: Neil on August 10, 2011, 08:53:42 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 10, 2011, 08:12:01 PM
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 08:04:02 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 10, 2011, 08:02:58 PM
What do you think morality is, Slargos?
You're holding an entire people responsible for the actions of a minority, yet deploring me for doing the same. You tell me.
You've implied that mere lawfulness is morality, which is simply a bunch of people (in a democracy, or fewer in another form of government) deciding what they think is correct, either after consideration or in a fit of pique.
Regarding Serbia. The Serbian government sponsored a campaign of repression in Kosovo, as they had in Bosnia. The Serbian people either supported it directly or acquiesced and supported their government indirectly, through their labors and provision of taxes. While I would not argue for something ridiculous, such as every person in the country be put on trial, during wartime they made themselves targets, and their pain does not trouble me much more than the pain they caused others seemed to trouble them, and no more than the far greater amount of pain the people of Dresden must have experienced.
It does move me to sympathy, but when you acquiesce to an illegitimate government and labor to bolster it, is it reasonable that you are permitted to hide behind civilian status while you abet murder?
So then the South was morally justified in their succession because of the brutal US repression of Indians?
I think we can all agree that the US government was illegitimate.
Yes, although I thought it went without saying that the reason for secession must also be legitimate. There is also the fact that even had the South seceded based on moral solidarity with the Indians, there would remain an element of abandonment involved, unless the South relatively soon thereafter attacked the United States and attempted to reform their Indian policy through force of arms.
It would still be stupid, because we're talking about a country with, what? One third the industrial base?
Quote from: SlargosAnd would this legitimacy extend to targeted reprisals, or just to coincidental attacks according to the established laws of warfare?
Population targeting has been a mainstay of U.S. and U.K. strategic warfare plans for generations, and I've always defended them.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2011, 07:14:23 PM
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 07:06:53 PM
Which is a bit disturbing, given that you popularly claim to have invented modern democracy, yet have such a hatred for self-determination.
The Swedish monarchy meanwhile, or in American terms old world despotism, managed to settle a nationalist independence movement without a single shot fired.
Funny how things work out.
Even funnier how you also cheered on the Kosovo rebellion.
I guess as the old saying goes, everything is so big in America that double-standards simply aren't enough. You need tripple-standards. Preferably super-sized.
What you don't understand is that Americans have balls. Something sadly lacking amongst European males.
Yeah, he seems to think that the Swedes recognized Norwegian independence without any blood being shed on the basis of some principle, when in fact the did so out of fear of getting their asses kicked.
Anyway, Slargos, I've been on record already saying the United States prior to at least 1920 was an illegitimate government that could justifiably be opposed with force. How is that supposed to have trapped me?
It doesn't diminish my support for the U.S.A. over the C.S.A., or invalidate U.S. actions in that war.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 10, 2011, 08:59:41 PM
Population targeting has been a mainstay of U.S. and U.K. strategic warfare plans for generations, and I've always defended them.
And what is the justification for targeting the civilian population? You didn't fully answer my question, by the way. I asked whether reprisals, or if you will, attacks intended to specifically incite terror in the population or exact revenge for previous misdeeds, whether the population were explicitly involved or not, was legitimate.
Quote from: dps on August 10, 2011, 09:00:46 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2011, 07:14:23 PM
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 07:06:53 PM
Which is a bit disturbing, given that you popularly claim to have invented modern democracy, yet have such a hatred for self-determination.
The Swedish monarchy meanwhile, or in American terms old world despotism, managed to settle a nationalist independence movement without a single shot fired.
Funny how things work out.
Even funnier how you also cheered on the Kosovo rebellion.
I guess as the old saying goes, everything is so big in America that double-standards simply aren't enough. You need tripple-standards. Preferably super-sized.
What you don't understand is that Americans have balls. Something sadly lacking amongst European males.
Yeah, he seems to think that the Swedes recognized Norwegian independence without any blood being shed on the basis of some principle, when in fact the did so out of fear of getting their asses kicked.
You seem very well versed on the subject. Perhaps you could describe to me the process that preceded the dissolution of the Union. Short bullet points on the decision makers' motivations for continuing the dissolution without armed intervention will do.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 10, 2011, 09:01:49 PM
Anyway, Slargos, I've been on record already saying the United States prior to at least 1920 was an illegitimate government that could justifiably be opposed with force.
See, and it's stuff like this that makes you difficult to take seriously.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 10, 2011, 08:48:35 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2011, 08:47:58 PM
Why are you bothering arguing with Slargos?
Why do I bother arguing with anyone? You can count the number of people who've changed their minds on the Internet on one hand. But it's fun.
Eh, he's been on full troll mode for the last few weeks. He's not making arguments, he's just messing with you.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2011, 09:13:45 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 10, 2011, 08:48:35 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2011, 08:47:58 PM
Why are you bothering arguing with Slargos?
Why do I bother arguing with anyone? You can count the number of people who've changed their minds on the Internet on one hand. But it's fun.
Eh, he's been on full troll mode for the last few weeks. He's not making arguments, he's just messing with you.
Are you in agreement with Ide?
Didn't even bother to read what he's on about. All I noticed is he's trying to argue with you, which is like trying to beat a punching bag at boxing.
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 09:09:20 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 10, 2011, 08:59:41 PM
Population targeting has been a mainstay of U.S. and U.K. strategic warfare plans for generations, and I've always defended them.
And what is the justification for targeting the civilian population? You didn't fully answer my question, by the way. I asked whether reprisals, or if you will, attacks intended to specifically incite terror in the population or exact revenge for previous misdeeds, whether the population were explicitly involved or not, was legitimate.
The justification for targeting civilian population breaks down as follows:
1)the civilian population bolsters the government;
2)the civilian population has failed to actively resist the government;
3)the civilian population is valued by the government.
Revenge, of course, isn't a very worthy motivation, but inciting terror in an enemy (assuming your just cause) is.
Quote from: NeilSee, and it's stuff like this that makes you difficult to take seriously.
I just don't hold much with the idea that "it was the past, it was shitty so it was okay."
Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2011, 09:16:19 PM
Didn't even bother to read what he's on about. All I noticed is he's trying to argue with you, which is like trying to beat a punching bag at boxing.
Gotten beat up by a punching bag, huh? :console:
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 09:18:23 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2011, 09:16:19 PM
Didn't even bother to read what he's on about. All I noticed is he's trying to argue with you, which is like trying to beat a punching bag at boxing.
Gotten beat up by a punching bag, huh? :console:
Have a better chance getting hurt by a punching bag then a Swedish expat cabinet Nazi.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 10, 2011, 09:16:59 PM
I just don't hold much with the idea that "it was the past, it was shitty so it was okay."
And you're wrong to feel that way.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstarcasm.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F08%2FLucasLeePoster5rev.jpg%3Fggnoads&hash=f43b13bdd0ab45a861e570e9f03567c6e740c559)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstarcasm.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F08%2FLucasLeePoster1rev.jpg%3Fggnoads&hash=9828631e538cb6a5fb09ec0d3ee422abcbb5bfb1)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstarcasm.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F08%2FLucasLeePoster2rev.jpg%3Fggnoads&hash=961f61f08af25cf2585efe838e649149d33738ad)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstarcasm.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F08%2FLucasLeePoster3rev.jpg%3Fggnoads&hash=3065242be9dfa57f4a3f87c4a5a1a840ea734d7d)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstarcasm.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F08%2FLucasLeePoster4rev.jpg%3Fggnoads&hash=0cfc517929b4b41b8c072a789ea7c70821c27dff)
Who is Lucas Lee?
He didn't even fuck her. I don't know why he got to be in the club.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2011, 10:01:09 PM
Who is Lucas Lee?
Second evil ex from Scott Pilgrim. I guess the vegan superpowers jokes were wearing thin.
I still say the funniest bit was Tom Jane, as the vegan police, giving the supergay high-five.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 10, 2011, 10:56:23 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2011, 10:01:09 PM
Who is Lucas Lee?
Second evil ex from Scott Pilgrim. I guess the vegan superpowers jokes were wearing thin.
I still say the funniest bit was Tom Jane, as the vegan police, giving the supergay high-five.
I don't understand what the hell you are talking about. I'm guessing that Seedy is posting irrelevant bullshit in a thread where he sees irrelevant bullshit again.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2011, 11:05:47 PM
I don't understand what the hell you are talking about. I'm guessing that Seedy is posting irrelevant bullshit in a thread where he sees irrelevant bullshit again.
Scott Pilgrim vs. the World? Kiddie-hipster movie about a dude who has to fight this chick's evil exes before he can bang her? Second bad dude is an action movie actor who can make "stunt doubles" of himself, a la Multiple Man.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 10, 2011, 11:19:50 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2011, 11:05:47 PM
I don't understand what the hell you are talking about. I'm guessing that Seedy is posting irrelevant bullshit in a thread where he sees irrelevant bullshit again.
Scott Pilgrim vs. the World? Kiddie-hipster movie about a dude who has to fight this chick's evil exes before he can bang her? Second bad dude is an action movie actor who can make "stunt doubles" of himself, a la Multiple Man.
Ed said not to see Cera movies.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcache.gawkerassets.com%2Fassets%2Fimages%2F8%2F2010%2F04%2F500x_custom_1270397880934_picture_110.jpg&hash=12ce5e3c49bff08383dd7dc9405b1f335b5bbb1c)
Turtledove and Richard Dreyfus is quite the unholy marriage.
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 11, 2011, 01:18:25 AM
Turtledove and Richard Dreyfus is quite the unholy marriage.
Incorrect. A guy named Sobel.
For Want of a Nail, written in the 1970's.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 11, 2011, 01:31:09 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 11, 2011, 01:18:25 AM
Turtledove and Richard Dreyfus is quite the unholy marriage.
Incorrect. A guy named Sobel. For Want of a Nail, written in the 1970's.
My point still stands independently.
I guess Seedster has a man crush on Chris Evans - mind you, who doesn't? :wub:
Quote from: Syt on August 11, 2011, 12:19:00 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcache.gawkerassets.com%2Fassets%2Fimages%2F8%2F2010%2F04%2F500x_custom_1270397880934_picture_110.jpg&hash=12ce5e3c49bff08383dd7dc9405b1f335b5bbb1c)
Manitoba
uber alles! :showoff:
Jefferson never stepped foot in Texas in his life. :P
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 10, 2011, 05:10:19 PM
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 05:06:02 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 10, 2011, 05:01:31 PM
And retard map shows up again
If you just learn to accept the inevitable instead of fear it, things will go a lot more smoothly for you.
I accept that notion the map is fucking retarded.
seconded
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 11, 2011, 10:29:54 AM
Jefferson never stepped foot in Texas in his life. :P
Wasn't the State of Jefferson suggested at a few times for parts of Texas?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 11, 2011, 10:29:54 AM
Jefferson never stepped foot in Texas in his life. :P
Nor did Washington ever set foot in Washington. :P
Quote from: garbon on August 11, 2011, 08:28:27 AM
I guess Seedster has a man crush on Chris Evans - mind you, who doesn't? :wub:
He was definitely the best evil ex.
Quote from: garbon on August 11, 2011, 10:48:14 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 11, 2011, 10:29:54 AM
Jefferson never stepped foot in Texas in his life. :P
Wasn't the State of Jefferson suggested at a few times for parts of Texas?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_State
Colorado + bits of Wyoming, Nebraska, New Mexico and Oklahoma Panhandle - changed to present plan after the square state had to be changed due to slavery debate and the 3 high 5 wide plan for the plains states originally planned
West Texas - basically a plea for more resources from San Antonio
Border counties between California and Oregon - basically a plea for better local infrastructure
there have been many attempts at a state of Jefferson.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 10, 2011, 10:56:23 PM
I still say the funniest bit was Tom Jane, as the vegan police, giving the supergay high-five.
It's milk and eggs, bitch.
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 03:37:58 PM
FUCK YEAH
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F_6WWnY7l5vz8%2FSVj0J0pM1OI%2FAAAAAAAAEZ8%2FSn9MMyZfKrM%2Fs400%2FUSA_disintegrated.gif&hash=51aaefd45754a85d5a3cde622107a724df474a3f)
I say Nevada, Idaho, Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah go with the Midwest.
Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan go with Northeast.
Texas stands alone.
Alaska goes to Canada and Hawaii declare independence.
Tennessee, SC and NC should remain in the SEC, and Pennsylvania should stay in the Big 10.
Quote from: Viking on August 11, 2011, 06:03:48 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 11, 2011, 10:48:14 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 11, 2011, 10:29:54 AM
Jefferson never stepped foot in Texas in his life. :P
Wasn't the State of Jefferson suggested at a few times for parts of Texas?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_State
Colorado + bits of Wyoming, Nebraska, New Mexico and Oklahoma Panhandle - changed to present plan after the square state had to be changed due to slavery debate and the 3 high 5 wide plan for the plains states originally planned
West Texas - basically a plea for more resources from San Antonio
Border counties between California and Oregon - basically a plea for better local infrastructure
there have been many attempts at a state of Jefferson.
I read the wiki article again before I posted. :P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 11, 2011, 05:39:39 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 11, 2011, 08:28:27 AM
I guess Seedster has a man crush on Chris Evans - mind you, who doesn't? :wub:
He was definitely the best evil ex.
I was more concerned with his sex. :unsure:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbitcast-a-sm.bitgravity.com%2Fslashfilm%2Fwp%2Fwp-content%2Fimages%2Ffakepostersjuddapatow.jpg&hash=2ad44ded4fd9d791376275748b4f28a89c7d1c46)