• Announcements

    • Michael Stuart Kelly

      Major Update to OL (please click to open)   02/09/2016

      Sorry for the inconvenience, but we had to update OL and there have been some serious changes made by IPB. The real bad news is that they had to merge User Names and Display Names. This meant that I had to choose between bad and bad. I opted to keep the log-on information the same, so you can get on OL like you always did, but now your User Name is displayed. If your User Name and Display Name were the same, you will not feel the change. If they were different, you are probably irritated right now. I will figure out how you can change this so you can revert to the Display Name you used before if you like, however this may entail a change in how you log-on. The good news is that OL is now searchable from the very beginning. This means all the old posts from the A-Team in Objectivism (and everybody else) will finally show up when you search for something. I will keep changing this announcement as we adapt to these new changes. It's a pain, I know, but after looking around the backend for a bit, I believe the benefits will far, far outweigh the current irritation. They changed things in a hamhanded way and I don't like that, but I can't do anything about it. Benefit-wise, they actually did a good job, so please bear with us. In addition to this change, many good things are coming over time. You are the reason OL exists and I am sorry you have to go through this. Think of it like birth pangs... (All right, all right, that's forcing it.  ) Michael
Adonis Vlahos

Armed Chinese Troops in Texas

150 posts in this topic

Imagine Ron Paul not getting the nomination, it's easy if you try.

I suggest the Chinese invade New Jersey. They might live long enough to set up check points. Don't mess with Texas!

--Brant

imagine +200,000,000 firearms and lots of ammo and many expert shooters with telescoptic sights then imagine suicide by civilian

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine Ron Paul not getting the nomination, it's easy if you try.

I suggest the Chinese invade New Jersey. They might live long enough to set up check points. Don't mess with Texas!

--Brant

imagine +200,000,000 firearms and lots of ammo and many expert shooters with telescoptic sights then imagine suicide by civilian

http://youtu.be/-Ei0wlqTMpM They could try NY City, I would enjoy the target practice - Casablanca scene

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one would voluntarily give New Jersey to the Chinese if they promised to hunt down those people from the Jersey Shore and punish them severely for helping to ruin more and more TV.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent ad.

For a second I thought it was a promo for "Red Dawn." :rolleyes:

Ghs

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was one of the silliest movies. Why would the Cubans invade Colorado instead of Florida? The cowboys and indians I played as a boy (cowboy)--actually it was cowboys and cowboys shooting at each other--was more realistic.

--Brant

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This ad is actually a perspective many Americans need to see because it reflects a portion of reality they habitually dismiss.

The problem I see with it is that the same people who promote this kind of stuff habitually dismiss dictatorships who arm themselves to the teeth and gear up for wars of conquest.

Underneath, the real public relations problem is the false dichotomy the ones blasting their megaphones promote.

Both sides of the false dichotomy lead to war.

Michael

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was one of the silliest movies. Why would the Cubans invade Colorado instead of Florida? The cowboys and indians I played as a boy (cowboy)--actually it was cowboys and cowboys shooting at each other--was more realistic.

--Brant

Yes, the film certainly required a suspension of disbelief. But given the premise, I thought it was a pretty good flick. Frankly, one reason I liked it is because it drove liberal reviewers bonkers. They especially disliked the scene, early in the film, where the invaders use registration records to track down and confiscate privately-owned guns.

Ghs

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This ad is actually a perspective many Americans need to see because it reflects a portion of reality they habitually dismiss.

The problem I see with it is that the same people who promote this kind of stuff habitually dismiss dictatorships who arm themselves to the teeth and gear up for wars of conquest.

Underneath, the real public relations problem is the false dichotomy the ones blasting their megaphones promote.

Both sides of the false dichotomy lead to war.

Michael

I don't know if I understand what you are saying here. Is Paul's noninterventionism one side of the "false dichotomy" that you condemn? If so, are you claiming that noninterventionism leads to war?

Ghs

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

George,

Let me qualify that.

When you do not intervene in a country gearing up for a war of conquest, the result is war of conquest.

That's pretty obvious, no?

My problem with USA interventions is that it has far too often intervened in countries that were not doing that, and this has effectively put the USA in the position of carrying out a war of conquest.

So to say it differently, the blindness to reality I have witnessed on both sides by our propaganda masters on both sides leads to wars of conquest.

Reality is what it is.

And propaganda masters aren't too interested in reality

btw - I consider that ad to be propaganda.

Michael

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

George,

Let me qualify that.

When you do not intervene in a country gearing up for a war of conquest, the result is war of conquest.

That's pretty obvious, no?

My problem with USA interventions is that it has far too often intervened in countries that were not doing that, and this has effectively put the USA in the position of carrying out a war of conquest.

So to say it differently, the blindness to reality I have witnessed on both sides by our propaganda masters on both sides leads to wars of conquest.

Reality is what it is.

And propaganda masters aren't too interested in reality

btw - I consider that ad to be propaganda.

Michael

Just because a country might be "gearing up for a war of conquest" doesn't necessarily mean that the U.S. should intervene. Right?

Yes, the Ron Paul video is propaganda. All political ads are propaganda, i.e., "The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause." (American Heritage Dictionary)

So what?

Ghs.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just because a country might be "gearing up for a war of conquest" doesn't necessarily mean that the U.S. should intervene. Right?

George,

I don't think in contextless principles.

My answer is it depends on the context.

A principle without context would never be a reason to do anything in my world.

Michael

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So what?
George. So I don't like wars of conquest. And I believe political propaganda promotes them. That's what. Michael

Political propaganda is sometimes true. Do you think that true information promotes wars of conquest? If so, that is quite a stretch.

But the key issue here is noninterventionism, so I ask again: Do you think that the U.S. should intervene to stop wars of conquest, even when we are not threatened?

And suppose the U.S. engages in a war of conquest. Should other governments intervene to stop us?

These are important questions. Please answer them.

Ghs

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just because a country might be "gearing up for a war of conquest" doesn't necessarily mean that the U.S. should intervene. Right?
George, I don't think in contextless principles. My answer is it depends on the context. A principle without context would never be a reason to do anything in my world. Michael

General principles cannot be applied to a given context unless you first have general principles. Suppose you asked if I oppose robbing banks, as a matter of principle. And suppose I replied, "It depends on the context. I don't think in contextless principles."

I doubt if you would be satisifed with my answer.

Ghs

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was one of the silliest movies. Why would the Cubans invade Colorado instead of Florida? The cowboys and indians I played as a boy (cowboy)--actually it was cowboys and cowboys shooting at each other--was more realistic.

--Brant

Yes, the film certainly required a suspension of disbelief. But given the premise, I thought it was a pretty good flick. Frankly, one reason I liked it is because it drove liberal reviewers bonkers. They especially disliked the scene, early in the film, where the invaders use registration records to track down and confiscate privately-owned guns.

Ghs

Yeah, that was great! What hung me up was I knew too much about war to suspend disbelief.

--Brant

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just because a country might be "gearing up for a war of conquest" doesn't necessarily mean that the U.S. should intervene. Right?
George, I don't think in contextless principles. My answer is it depends on the context. A principle without context would never be a reason to do anything in my world. Michael

General principles cannot be applied to a given context unless you first have general principles. Suppose you asked if I oppose robbing banks, as a matter of principle. And suppose I replied, "It depends on the context. I don't think in contextless principles."

I doubt if you would be satisifed with my answer.

Ghs

Why would you be a bank robber? Being a criminal, depending on the society you live in, may be moral and necessary. You would probably have to be at war with that society and for legitimate reasons. In the context of war what happens to the NIOF principle? So far, I'm with Michael on this one, but I know you've got a come-back. Anyway, NIOF is the principle, not robbing or not robbing banks. The application demands the context. In the society we have here and now I do not know how bank robbing can be justified, at least with a gun.

As a general principle, NIOF was developed out of people bumping into each other with bad results. Rights are a human invention out of human being, individual and collective.

--Brant

come-back!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
General principles cannot be applied to a given context unless you first have general principles.

George,

This presumes that I do not have general principles.

I do.

Here's a good one. You must correctly identify something before you evaluate it if you wish the evaluation to be valid.

That's why I do not like propaganda. It leads people to incorrect identification as a path to a predetermined evaluation.

Also, I believe general principles should be drawn from observation over time, not simply dreamed up.

I don't find your bank robber example relevant to this form of thinking (cognitive before normative).

Michael

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just because a country might be "gearing up for a war of conquest" doesn't necessarily mean that the U.S. should intervene. Right?
George, I don't think in contextless principles. My answer is it depends on the context. A principle without context would never be a reason to do anything in my world. Michael
General principles cannot be applied to a given context unless you first have general principles. Suppose you asked if I oppose robbing banks, as a matter of principle. And suppose I replied, "It depends on the context. I don't think in contextless principles." I doubt if you would be satisfied with my answer. Ghs
Why would you be a bank robber? Being a criminal, depending on the society you live in, may be moral and necessary. You would probably have to be at war with that society and for legitimate reasons. In the context of war what happens to the NIOF principle? So far, I'm with Michael on this one, but I know you've got a come-back. --Brant come-back!

To formulate a general principle is not to deny the possibility of exceptions. Indeed, an exception has meaning only in contrast to a general rule.

Your reasoning, if consistently applied, would make it is impossible for us to formulate any general moral/political principles. Do we oppose the initiation of force? No, since I can think of some exceptional cases where it might be justifiable to initiate force. Do we oppose theft? No, since I can think of exceptional cases where it might be necessary to steal food in order to survive.

Etc., etc --to the point of absurdity.

Ghs

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
General principles cannot be applied to a given context unless you first have general principles.
George, This presumes that I do not have general principles. I do. Here's a good one. You must correctly identify something before you evaluate it if you wish the evaluation to be valid. That's why I do not like propaganda. It leads people to incorrect identification as a path to a predetermined evaluation. Also, I believe general principles should be drawn from observation over time, not simply dreamed up. I don't find your bank robber example relevant to this form of thinking (cognitive before normative). Michael

I give up.

Ghs

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
General principles cannot be applied to a given context unless you first have general principles.
George, This presumes that I do not have general principles. I do. Here's a good one. You must correctly identify something before you evaluate it if you wish the evaluation to be valid. That's why I do not like propaganda. It leads people to incorrect identification as a path to a predetermined evaluation. Also, I believe general principles should be drawn from observation over time, not simply dreamed up. I don't find your bank robber example relevant to this form of thinking (cognitive before normative). Michael

I give up.

Ghs

Why don't we just sit on this for a day and let me at least think this through a little more?

--Brant

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Political propaganda is sometimes true.

George,

And half the coral snakes are not poisonous, too.

Sorry, but I'll get my information from more reputable sources. And I speak as someone who has studies some of the principles of crowd manipulation. So I am not so naive and romantic about the so-called "truth" that could be in propaganda as the position that you enjoy.

Do you think that true information promotes wars of conquest?

No. Not intrinsically like a mathematical equation, i.e., True Information = Promotion of War of Conquest.

That's pretty silly.

But I think true information used poorly could promote wars of conquest. That's not a stretch at all.

All you have to do is leave out half in your propaganda efforts and lead people to believe that the other half does not exist or is not important. Bingo. Fertile ground for a war of conquest to develop.

But the key issue here is noninterventionism,

This is where we disagree.

The key issue for me is correct identification before evaluating anything.

I don't believe intervention or noninterventionism should be based on incorrect identification.

Do you think that the U.S. should intervene to stop wars of conquest, even when we are not threatened?

When this USA is not threatened, of course it should not intervene.

The devil is in how a threat is perceived. If you see a country devoted to conquering the world gearing up to conquer its neighbors, the issue gets complicated. Here is where I believe context really matters.

If the USA's experts in these matters honestly believe that such a country will grow into a gigantic threat as it annexes other countries by invasion, thus it will become a threat to the USA in the foreseeable future, it's far better to nip the evil in the bud than wait to engage in a war where millions get slaughtered.

If the threat is practically nonexistent (say, like with Iraq), we should just leave well enough alone, but keep an eye on it. I'm speaking of the second war.

In the first, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, there were some USA oil interests involved, so that issue is more thorny. As I think those oil interests stink in the first place, my gut reaction is to say let it be. But I realize that this could have escalated into a mess over in the Middle East where oodles of Americans in several countries would have been at risk and this could have put Israel in serious danger of invasion.

(I support the USA defending Israel, but I have written at length about this elsewhere.)

And suppose the U.S. engages in a war of conquest. Should other governments intervene to stop us?

This is a tricky one. Let's unpack it a bit.

If you are talking about a bloody dictatorship intervening to stop us, I simply don't believe in the good intentions of bloody dictatorships. So in this case, two wrongs do not make a right and I do not believe any bloody dictatorship should intervene in the USA under any circumstances.

If you are talking about one of our allies, I could certainly see why it would do so, especially if it felt threatened. And if it acted as Washington and Lincoln did--saying "Go home" after the fighting--I would hold that our leaders deserved to get their asses kicked.

However, it it were a country who intervened by rounding up people and executing them after the fighting, sorry, but in a situation like that, there is no morality. There is only survival.

There comes a moment where you have to take stock of where you are and who you are with. Would I think it proper for a foreign government to intervene and kill me and/or my loved ones because the USA government is doing something wrong?

A big honking "No!"

I would fight that government tooth and nail, and after the danger passes, work to get my government to cut the crap.

Like I said, I don't live in a contextless world and I don't think in contextless principles.

Like you said, these are important questions--far too important to me to leave out huge chunks of reality when I evaluate them.

Michael

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I think true information used poorly could promote wars of conquest. That's not a stretch at all. All you have to do is leave out half in your propaganda efforts and lead people to believe that the other half does not exist or is not important. Bingo. Fertile ground for a war of conquest to develop.

Frankly, I don't see you presenting and/or defending points of view, other than your own, in your posts. Does this mean that your posts are "propaganda" in a bad sense? Might not your presentation of only one side -- namely, your side -- lead to wars of conquest?

The problem is not with presentations of a particular point of view, but with people who don't read or watch anything except one point of view. To call Ron Paul's ad "propaganda" is merely to say that it attempts to persuade people to Paul's point of view. This is what political ads are supposed to do. He is attempting to get elected, after all.

Ghs

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frankly, I don't see you presenting and/or defending points of view, other than your own...

George,

This is simple.

This is because I am right.

:)

Michael

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now