Hey, Look! Diplomacy Works! (Iran to De-Fuse)

AuroEdge · Post by **AuroEdge** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 8:44 pm

Iran is still running over 2 dozen centrifuges for what they call "research" purposes. The EU & U.N. being effective like usual

. They're so effective that a movement (which has obviously started a long time ago) has centralized to oust the U.N. from NYC.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 10:20 pm

weeperofsouls wrote:
Ender wrote:
Weeper: Making personal attacks at people without backing yourself up doesn't really make you look as good as you think it does.
making a personal attack and pointing out hypocracy are two different things.

Yes, and you're making personal attacks.

AuroEdge wrote:Iran is still running over 2 dozen centrifuges for what they call "research" purposes. The EU & U.N. being effective like usual . They're so effective that a movement (which has obviously started a long time ago) has centralized to oust the U.N. from NYC.

Ah, so we should shut down any country who tries to do scientific research that we disagree with on shaky grounds now? Purification is used in more than just bombs. Hell, even Canada is doing research on chemical and bioligical weapons. I guess that they should shut those down or face the wrath of the "mighty" US too.

Ex-Cyber · Post by **Ex-Cyber** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 10:23 pm

making a personal attack and pointing out hypocracy are two different things

There's a joke in there somewhere about "big government liberals".

Stormwatch · Post by **Stormwatch** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 10:35 pm

Here is all the justification that shall ever be needed to any invasion...

Back in june 1963, Ayn Rand wrote:Dictatorship nations are outlaws. Any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany and, today, has the right to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba or any other slave pen. Whether a free nation chooses to do so or not is a matter of its own self-interest, not of respect for the nonexistent ?rights? of gang rulers. It is not a free nation?s duty to liberate other nations at the price of self-sacrifice, but a free nation has the right to do it, when and if it so chooses.

This right, however, is conditional. Just as the suppression of crimes does not give a policeman the right to engage in criminal activities, so the invasion and destruction of a dictatorship does not give the invader the right to establish another variant of a slave society in the conquered country.

A slave country has no national rights, but the individual rights of its citizens remain valid, even if unrecognized, and the conqueror has no right to violate them. Therefore, the invasion of an enslaved country is morally justified only when and if the conquerors establish a free social system, that is, a system based on the recognition of individual rights.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 10:45 pm

I hate Ayn Rand. And really, it assumes that the dictator is corrupt, which is not necessarily the case.

Stormwatch · Post by **Stormwatch** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 10:48 pm

Corruption - or let me use a more adequate word: EVIL is inherent to dictatorship. There can be no good dictatorship.

EXCEPT... transitory external control over a former dictatorship after a war. That is, the few years of american rule over Japan after WW2, or right now, after the war in Iraq. Both were planned to last only enough to put such countries back on track and make them democracies.

It worked in Japan. I believe it will in Iraq.

Master Higgins · Post by **Master Higgins** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 11:11 pm

Ayn Rand is the biggest debacle of humanity ever, quoting her is like citing hardy boys novels for literary brilliance.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 11:14 pm

Stormwatch wrote:Corruption - or let me use a more adequate word: EVIL is inherent to dictatorship. There can be no good dictatorship.

EXCEPT... transitory external control over a former dictatorship after a war. That is, the few years of american rule over Japan after WW2, or right now, after the war in Iraq. Both were planned to last only enough to put such countries back on track and make them democracies.

It worked in Japan. I believe it will in Iraq.

Yes, and Castro is evil and has enslaved the people of Cuba. Inherantly evil. </sarcasm>

Master Higgins wrote:Ayn Rand is the biggest debacle of humanity ever, quoting her is like citing hardy boys novels for literary brilliance.

My god, I actually agree with Higgins on something. The world must be ending...

Stormwatch · Post by **Stormwatch** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 11:28 pm

Short and blunt: Rand's a fuckin' genius!

Ender · Post by **Ender** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 12:16 am

Stormwatch wrote:Short and blunt: Rand's a fudge' genius!

No, Plato and Socrates were genius'. Neitzche (even though I don't agree with him) was a genius. Rand was and is a hack.

Master Higgins · Post by **Master Higgins** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 12:25 am

Ayn Rand like to butcher other philosopher's work to support her own, supports comformity and uses illogical arguments to support her whole mantra of omnilogical existence, which in itself is non-conformist. To go debunk Ayn Rand, God I don't even know where to begin read her site maybe and you'll begin to see that madness of it all.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 12:32 am

Master Higgins wrote:Ayn Rand like to butcher other philosopher's work to support her own, supports comformity and uses illogical arguments to support her whole mantra of omnilogical existence, which in itself is non-conformist. To go debunk Ayn Rand, God I don't even know where to begin read her site maybe and you'll begin to see that madness of it all.

Well said.

weeperofsouls · Post by **weeperofsouls** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 2:03 am

Ender wrote:
weeperofsouls wrote:
Ender wrote:
Weeper: Making personal attacks at people without backing yourself up doesn't really make you look as good as you think it does.
making a personal attack and pointing out hypocracy are two different things.
Yes, and you're making personal attacks.

im curious... do you ever get tired of being an annoying know-it-all?

Ender · Post by **Ender** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 2:28 am

weeperofsouls wrote:
Ender wrote:
weeperofsouls wrote:
Ender wrote:
Weeper: Making personal attacks at people without backing yourself up doesn't really make you look as good as you think it does.
making a personal attack and pointing out hypocracy are two different things.
Yes, and you're making personal attacks.

im curious... do you ever get tired of being an annoying know-it-all?

Actually, speaking of philosophy, the only thing that I know is that I know nothing. (Name that philosopher!)

I'm pretty sure anything that I say to reply to you will end up involving you giving me more personal attacks, but really look at your posts in the threads that I've commented on. You tend to be quite hypocritical yourself.

weeperofsouls · Post by **weeperofsouls** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 4:50 am

i just find it very irritating to debate with people that refuse to budge an inch on anything, as well as calling those who disagree with them 'ignorant'.

fatheadpi · Post by **fatheadpi** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:41 am

I wouldn't call weeper hypocritical. I've debated with him on more than one occaision, and I certainly have never seen him be hypocritical.

<sarcasm>Now I have seen him be a left wing liberal p*ssy, but not hypocritical</sarcasm>

Ender · Post by **Ender** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 1:56 pm

Hooray for Off Topic!

weeperofsouls wrote:i just find it very irritating to debate with people that refuse to budge an inch on anything, as well as calling those who disagree with them 'ignorant'.

ig?no?rant
adj.

1. Lacking education or knowledge.
2. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
3. Unaware or uninformed.

Therefore, die-hards in either the science or religion directions are by definition ignorant, as they cannot be aware or infomed without at least entertaining the other side of the discussion.

The only reason that I didn't budge is because I didn't know/didn't care, so I was taking a neutral position. Again, if you didn't see this, go re-read what I wrote, as it seems I was horribly misread in that other thread.

As for this thread, you attacked Farrell for attacking other people. I think that's pretty hypocritical, don't you?

But still, purification can be used for things other than bomb making. I personally feel that all parties involved are justified in what they're doing (Yes, both Iran and US), but at the same time, I can't say that one is more absolutely right than the other.

Ex-Cyber · Post by **Ex-Cyber** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 8:44 pm

I get the sense that Rand was not an evil person, but her philosophy is readily used to justify evil. Objectivism ostensibly forbids using the threat of physical violence in order to control people's economic decisions, but at the same time implicitly approves using the threat of starvation and homelessness in order to control people.

weeperofsouls · Post by **weeperofsouls** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 9:11 pm

Ender wrote:Hooray for Off Topic!

weeperofsouls wrote:i just find it very irritating to debate with people that refuse to budge an inch on anything, as well as calling those who disagree with them 'ignorant'.
ig?no?rant
adj.

1. Lacking education or knowledge.
2. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
3. Unaware or uninformed.

Therefore, die-hards in either the science or religion directions are by definition ignorant, as they cannot be aware or infomed without at least entertaining the other side of the discussion.

The only reason that I didn't budge is because I didn't know/didn't care, so I was taking a neutral position. Again, if you didn't see this, go re-read what I wrote, as it seems I was horribly misread in that other thread.

As for this thread, you attacked Farrell for attacking other people. I think that's pretty hypocritical, don't you?

But still, purification can be used for things other than bomb making. I personally feel that all parties involved are justified in what they're doing (Yes, both Iran and US), but at the same time, I can't say that one is more absolutely right than the other.

it could also be argued that your refusal to budge in that issue makes you ignorant. or just closeminded, take your pick.

as for farrell, you are talking about a person who almost always calls people on the other side of his argument 'silly', 'naive' and 'uninformed'. how is pointing that out 'hypocritical'?

come to think of it, your pointing out my attacking farrell for attacking others is pretty hypocritcal in itself.

fatheadpi wrote:I wouldn't call weeper hypocritical. I've debated with him on more than one occaision, and I certainly have never seen him be hypocritical.

<sarcasm>Now I have seen him be a left wing liberal p*ssy, but not hypocritical</sarcasm>

thats 'middle wing libertarian p*ssy', thank you very much, ya right wing extremist nutjob. lol.

MystiK · Post by **MystiK** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 9:31 pm

Here is all the justification that shall ever be needed to any invasion...

you know, I can ''justify'' anything in the world by quoting someone who supports it. That doesnt do a damn thing but make you look even more stupid. I won't even debate the incredibly weak argument she's making.

Ah, so we should shut down any country who tries to do scientific research that we disagree with on shaky grounds now? Purification is used in more than just bombs. Hell, even Canada is doing research on chemical and bioligical weapons. I guess that they should shut those down or face the wrath of the "mighty" US too.

Yeah but Canada isnt the Axis of Evil remember?.....

No, Plato and Socrates were genius

maybe socrates, but not plato in my opinion.