Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Farren · 04-25-2003, 06:34 PM

fornuften, you demonstrate a warm and non-confrontational personality every time you demonstrate profound ignorance of international affairs, so I'm gonna try speak in a come-sit-on-my-knee child attitude instead of a you-crazy-brainwashed-bush-loving-madman voice.

Quote:

I haven't necessarily seen any decrease in the amount of support the United States has received in hunting down terrorists and other activities that help the war on terrorism. It's not like France has said it will stop detaining and cooperating terrorists because of the war in Iraq. Remeber, they need us to be their friends as much, if not more than we need them (speaking in terms beyond war, such as economics). I don't think the war will have any practical ramifications in regards to other nations helping us hunt down terrorists. They need our good will as much as we need theirs.

What you also don't seem to have noticed is that there are about 50 "Boycott US goods/tourists/anything" campaigns that didn't exist a year ago in every developed economy in the world, at a time when the US economy is in its worst shape this century, or its 2nd worst in the last two centuries, and has the worst govt deficit in history if you don't perform some wizardry with inflation.

Or that the US is a net importer at a time when the dollar is in serious decline, and its biggest exports are not products but copyrights and patents that are increasingly being ignored by the non-aligned nations..

Or that the US dollar's strength is pinned to nations having to keep dollar reserves to buy oil at a time when the EU is about to become the worlds largest oil consumer (with the addition of 10 member states to the EU) and is exerting pressure on Opec to switch to the Euro as its medium of exchange. In other words, a time in history when the US desperately needs the goodwill of the nations it has deeply pissed off to bail its ass out of losing its foremostness in the world.

Quote:

In you second response, you only seem to be laying out a justification for our actions in Iraq. Just because WMD's aren'y laying out in the streets of Bagdad does not mean they aren't their. I believe that the logic behind the idea that other nations will scramble to get their own nukes to protect themselves from the U.S. is faulty because it is BECAUSE of the nukes/WMD's themselves that we would put pressure on a country to begin with. If a nation does not have WMD's or does not harbor/support terrorists, they do not have a reason to fear the U.S. In fact, the opposite is true. Take North Korea for example. Despite how well the talks are going, the very fact that NK agreed to talks with the U.S. AND China is, in all likelihood, motivated, at least paritally, by the consequences Iraq received fro producing WMD's.

Holy Jebus, fornuften, don't you see the mind-numbing silliness of this argument. Think about it as if it were individuals (the US has violated International Law here, so the comparison is quite close).

Lets say you were under intensive investigation by the FBI - they had fifty billion men around your house day after day, bugged your phones and snuck in every time you were out. Let's say they bazooka'd your lawnmower every time you drove past the "no-mow" zone so you eventually didn't have enough cash to buy a pair of grass clippers. Lets say they went to the court for a search warrant and every bit of evidence they presented was plagiarised, fraudulent or utterly inconclusive.

Lets say when the court said "screw that for a lark" they went ahead anyway and turned your house upside-down and still found nothing despite claiming conclusive evidence and knowledge of locations

If CNN reported this happening to a US citizen people would be on the streets in their thousands protesting (or maybe not in modern America), but somehow you seem to have lost the ability to apply the same simple reasoning process when your government lies outright, with much larger consequences, in International Affiars. Consider yourself scolded for missing your ethics class. Go stand in the corner.

Quote:

The war in Iraq has set a precedent that will give fair warning to any would-be possesor of WMD's. You say that WMD's in the hands of 2nd and 3rd world countries only makes it more likely that terrorists will acquire "at least one and do some REAL damage to us." I agree. That is why we attacked Iraq.

Only there was no evidence for WMDs and very little evidence to believe they had any. Saying "Saddam is a bad man, look what he did with the chemical weapons we helped him make over a decade ago[/i] doesn't change this fact.

Quote:

Your analogy of the chess game also bears a little correction. The United States (some nations being a tad "more equal" than others) has more say and power (economically, politically, cuturally etc.) than any other country on the earth. If the U.S. is the king in the scenario you mentioned, the nearest country to us would perhaps be a knight, maybe (Germany/Russia). Great Britain is hardly something to be ignored either. In the terms mentioned above, I would rank her as a rook. That aside, if such ranking and value is to be assigned, realize that the U.S. in and of itself is THE power to be reckoned with in the terms you use.

The other countries who support us, while not super-powers, are roughly equivalent (again, in the terms mentioned above) to the countries that support the "axis of oppotunism" (France, Germany, Russia). And. you cannot deny that this trio didn't do any pressuring themselves on those who eventually supported them. (Not to mention Turkey who is currently trying to get a slot in the EU)

Please, please, read this thread . The US is a net importer. It imports more than it produces. If US-Europe trade was to cease tomorrow, Europe would come off better because it can meet its own needs. The US is dominant for three reasons: entertainment, the military, and the strength of the dollar and the dollar is declining fast against the Euro, and the US has the biggest debt of any nation on earth.

Quote:

In response ot the next comment, as you mentioned, not a paratrooper in sight. But, as you also mentioned, the consequences of a nuke being detonated by a terrorist is soemthing to be taken into account. And, nuke set off in NY tommorow is certainly a greater threat than a paratrooper landing in D.C. today.

You miss Optional's point. THE US HAD NO EVIDENCE OF, OR REASONABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE, SADDAM HAD THE MEANS OR DISPOSITION TO USE WMDs AGAINST AMERICAN CITIZENS. Sorry to shout in your ear but it seems to be blocked at certain media frequencies.

Quote:

By the comment I just referred to, I meant that the U.N. evidently thinks it has the right to dictate when other countries can and can't use force to protect themselves and their interests....

Bladeebladeeblahblahblah

Repeat after me: THE US HAD NO EVIDENCE OF, OR REASONABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE, SADDAM HAD THE MEANS OR DISPOSITION TO USE WMDs AGAINST AMERICAN CITIZENS.

In other news, the US signed international treaties such as the UN charter commiting itself to not doing what it did in Iraq without UN approval...

Quote:

Also, since when FR, GER and RUSS speak for the whole U.N.? the U.N. never passed a resolution requiring that the U.S. stay out of Iraq. The U.S. is just as much of a voice in the U.N. as any of these countries, with or without a unanimous vote of approval.

Since when did the US agree to abide by the... UN rules it agreed to abide by?

Quote:

I may or may not have the time to reply to any further comments this weekend, but I appreciate the comments, Optional, your views have helped refine and tweak my own. I really enjoy this forum even though I have only participated for the past couple days.

Lordy, chile, they need more than a tweaking. They need a 720% rotation (just in case they're spin 1/2)

consider your bottom smacked

Loren Pechtel · 04-25-2003, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Evangelion
No worries, mate.

It's just that a totally unformatted paragraph is very difficult to read at the best of times, and especially when you're running a resolution of 1600x1200 @ 85 Hz - as I am.

What's 85hz got to do with it?

1600x1200 is too small for my eyes and I've got a 21" for my primary screen.

Loren Pechtel · 04-25-2003, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Evangelion
Paragraph breaks! Halleluyah!

Amen!

Loren Pechtel · 04-25-2003, 10:55 PM

Originally posted by fornuften
what appears to be a contradiction in my comments is probably based on our different ideas about the point of freedom of speech.

I don't think you understand what free speech really means.

Freedom of speech/ First Amendment has a to do with alot more than just what we say. I agree, anyone should be able to say what they want.

Fine, so far.

However, that is not the problem. The problem lies in the application of the freedom of speech. For example, how do we represent the public places like Times Square, as was mentioned by the original poster, Optional. This is where it gets more complicated because you have a public place that will be represented one way or ther other based on SOMEONE's taste, morals, values, or ideals.

What's exclusive about it? You get your soapbox, I get mine and we compete for an audience. Thus there is no justification for restricting free speech just because it's a public forum. Free speech wouldn't mean much if it didn't apply in public!

Speech is free because everyone can say what they want but the governments inactment and application of that freedom must favor one view or the other. You can't have it both ways with, say, the destruction/preservation of a national park.

What do government actions about say, a park, have to do with free speech?

Yes, the 1rst Am. is supposed to protect UNPOPULAR speech but it should also protect POPULAR speech from the tyranny of the minority.

The government won't arrest you for calling someone a filthy nigger. What tyranny of the minority are you talking about?
Free speech doesn't mean no consequences--if everybody's mad at you for using those words there's been no violation of free speech.

The idea that everyone's rights and free speech (in more than just the "speech" part of that term, rather individual rights in general) can be protected and respected is false. Inevitably there will be conflicts of peoples abilities to use their free speech. You can't get away from that.

Got an example?

But, it gets much harder when it is a question of an individual's rights to have Times Square look the way they want it to (and thus a way that reflects their ideals and values) which in theory, they partially own because they are part of the public. When this individual's/groups will goes against that of another group, you have a problem.

So? Each building owner can do what he likes with his building. People can vote on what they want the street to look like.

Loren Pechtel · 04-25-2003, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Optional
I'd just like to clarify here that I don't think there's anything actually illegal about the Disneyfication of Times Square. I just hate the, for lack of a better term 'movement', that led to it.

I wish people would just live and let live, ya know? I like strip clubs. I think they're fun. Yet I live in something like the third largest city in the country, and I have to drive for an hour to get to a decent strip club, because puritans in city government decided to protect me from my disgusting vile urges, so to speak.

Bah. It's late on friday, clarity is getting more and more difficult.

-me

As far as I'm concerned, most restrictions on strip clubs are violations of the First Amendmant.

In most cases they involve liquor and thus warrant a certain amount of isolation from residential areas. (Drinking establishments mean drunks.) Any place a bar would be ok I would accept a strip club also. I don't see what the employees wear being a matter the government has any business regulating.

Evangelion · 04-26-2003, 12:15 AM

Loren -

Quote:

What's 85hz got to do with it?

The higher the refresh rate, the greater the image quality. 50-75 Hz is "budget monitor" range.

Quote:

1600x1200 is too small for my eyes and I've got a 21" for my primary screen.

I use a 19" screen and I agree that under normal circumstances, 1600x1200 would be too small. The solution is to select "large fonts" in the "Appearance" sub-category of the "Display Properties" menu.

1600x1200 @ 85 HZ in 32-bit true colour is just fine.

Loren Pechtel · 04-26-2003, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by Evangelion
Loren -

The higher the refresh rate, the greater the image quality. 50-75 Hz is "budget monitor" range.

But it's not going to make a difference on how big the letters are, just how crisp the image is.

Thanks for mentioning it, though--I went to see what mine was and found that a recent mess with trying to install another video card had left the refresh down to 70 instead of 85.

I use a 19" screen and I agree that under normal circumstances, 1600x1200 would be too small. The solution is to select "large fonts" in the "Appearance" sub-category of the "Display Properties" menu.

1600x1200 @ 85 HZ in 32-bit true colour is just fine.

I've had trouble with some programs *NOT* appreciating the large fonts setting. I'm running 2 screens at 1280x1024, 32bit. One is a 21" crt, the other a 19" flat panel.

Evangelion · 04-26-2003, 10:19 AM

Quote:

But it's not going to make a difference on how big the letters are, just how crisp the image is.

I know, I was just mentioning it. I certainly wasn't claiming that it had anything to do with font size.

Quote:

Thanks for mentioning it, though--I went to see what mine was and found that a recent mess with trying to install another video card had left the refresh down to 70 instead of 85.

Quote:

I've had trouble with some programs *NOT* appreciating the large fonts setting.

Wow, I've never had that problem.

Quote:

I'm running 2 screens at 1280x1024, 32bit. One is a 21" crt, the other a 19" flat panel.

What brand, if I may ask?

Mine's just a Hyundai crt, but its image quality is exceptionally good for the price.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-25-2003, 10:55 PM	#54
Loren Pechtel Obsessed Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Not Mayaned Posts: 96,752	Originally posted by fornuften what appears to be a contradiction in my comments is probably based on our different ideas about the point of freedom of speech. I don't think you understand what free speech really means. Freedom of speech/ First Amendment has a to do with alot more than just what we say. I agree, anyone should be able to say what they want. Fine, so far. However, that is not the problem. The problem lies in the application of the freedom of speech. For example, how do we represent the public places like Times Square, as was mentioned by the original poster, Optional. This is where it gets more complicated because you have a public place that will be represented one way or ther other based on SOMEONE's taste, morals, values, or ideals. What's exclusive about it? You get your soapbox, I get mine and we compete for an audience. Thus there is no justification for restricting free speech just because it's a public forum. Free speech wouldn't mean much if it didn't apply in public! Speech is free because everyone can say what they want but the governments inactment and application of that freedom must favor one view or the other. You can't have it both ways with, say, the destruction/preservation of a national park. What do government actions about say, a park, have to do with free speech? Yes, the 1rst Am. is supposed to protect UNPOPULAR speech but it should also protect POPULAR speech from the tyranny of the minority. The government won't arrest you for calling someone a filthy nigger. What tyranny of the minority are you talking about? Free speech doesn't mean no consequences--if everybody's mad at you for using those words there's been no violation of free speech. The idea that everyone's rights and free speech (in more than just the "speech" part of that term, rather individual rights in general) can be protected and respected is false. Inevitably there will be conflicts of peoples abilities to use their free speech. You can't get away from that. Got an example? But, it gets much harder when it is a question of an individual's rights to have Times Square look the way they want it to (and thus a way that reflects their ideals and values) which in theory, they partially own because they are part of the public. When this individual's/groups will goes against that of another group, you have a problem. So? Each building owner can do what he likes with his building. People can vote on what they want the street to look like.

04-26-2003, 10:01 AM	#57
Loren Pechtel Obsessed Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Not Mayaned Posts: 96,752	Originally posted by Evangelion Loren - The higher the refresh rate, the greater the image quality. 50-75 Hz is "budget monitor" range. But it's not going to make a difference on how big the letters are, just how crisp the image is. Thanks for mentioning it, though--I went to see what mine was and found that a recent mess with trying to install another video card had left the refresh down to 70 instead of 85. I use a 19" screen and I agree that under normal circumstances, 1600x1200 would be too small. The solution is to select "large fonts" in the "Appearance" sub-category of the "Display Properties" menu. 1600x1200 @ 85 HZ in 32-bit true colour is just fine. I've had trouble with some programs NOT appreciating the large fonts setting. I'm running 2 screens at 1280x1024, 32bit. One is a 21" crt, the other a 19" flat panel.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.