Jump to content






Photo
- - - - -

Armed Chinese Troops in Texas

How would we feel?

  • Please log in to reply
149 replies to this topic

#1 Libertarian Muslim

Libertarian Muslim

    $$$$$

  • Members
  • 516 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 October 2011 - 03:23 PM

Food for thought



#2 Brant Gaede

Brant Gaede

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 15,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tucson, AZ
  • Interests:All kinds of stuff

Posted 12 October 2011 - 03:32 PM

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

Rational Individualist, Rational self-interest, Individual Rights--limited government libertarian heavily influenced by Objectivism


#3 Selene

Selene

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 15,422 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Chess, birding, football, baseball, minimalist backpacking, argumentation and debate, politics and philosophy, strategic board gaming, history, Rand, poetry, writing.

Posted 12 October 2011 - 04:28 PM

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



They could try NY City, I would enjoy the target practice - Casablanca scene
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

#4 Libertarian Muslim

Libertarian Muslim

    $$$$$

  • Members
  • 516 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 October 2011 - 04:36 AM

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.

#5 George H. Smith

George H. Smith

    $$$$$$

  • VIP
  • 5,610 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bloomington, IL
  • Interests:Books, ideas, jazz, chess, and intelligent people

Posted 13 October 2011 - 09:22 AM

Excellent ad.

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



Ghs

#6 Brant Gaede

Brant Gaede

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 15,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tucson, AZ
  • Interests:All kinds of stuff

Posted 13 October 2011 - 09:41 AM

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

Rational Individualist, Rational self-interest, Individual Rights--limited government libertarian heavily influenced by Objectivism


#7 Michael Stuart Kelly

Michael Stuart Kelly

    $$$$$$

  • Root Admin
  • 20,065 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 October 2011 - 10:19 AM

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

Know thyself...


#8 George H. Smith

George H. Smith

    $$$$$$

  • VIP
  • 5,610 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bloomington, IL
  • Interests:Books, ideas, jazz, chess, and intelligent people

Posted 13 October 2011 - 10:23 AM

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

#9 George H. Smith

George H. Smith

    $$$$$$

  • VIP
  • 5,610 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bloomington, IL
  • Interests:Books, ideas, jazz, chess, and intelligent people

Posted 13 October 2011 - 10:29 AM

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

#10 Michael Stuart Kelly

Michael Stuart Kelly

    $$$$$$

  • Root Admin
  • 20,065 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 October 2011 - 11:19 AM

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

Know thyself...


#11 George H. Smith

George H. Smith

    $$$$$$

  • VIP
  • 5,610 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bloomington, IL
  • Interests:Books, ideas, jazz, chess, and intelligent people

Posted 13 October 2011 - 11:33 AM

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.

#12 Michael Stuart Kelly

Michael Stuart Kelly

    $$$$$$

  • Root Admin
  • 20,065 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 October 2011 - 11:55 AM

So what?

George.

So I don't like wars of conquest.

And I believe political propaganda promotes them.

That's what.

Michael

Know thyself...


#13 Michael Stuart Kelly

Michael Stuart Kelly

    $$$$$$

  • Root Admin
  • 20,065 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 October 2011 - 11:57 AM

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

Know thyself...


#14 George H. Smith

George H. Smith

    $$$$$$

  • VIP
  • 5,610 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bloomington, IL
  • Interests:Books, ideas, jazz, chess, and intelligent people

Posted 13 October 2011 - 12:03 PM

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

#15 George H. Smith

George H. Smith

    $$$$$$

  • VIP
  • 5,610 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bloomington, IL
  • Interests:Books, ideas, jazz, chess, and intelligent people

Posted 13 October 2011 - 12:08 PM

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

#16 Brant Gaede

Brant Gaede

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 15,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tucson, AZ
  • Interests:All kinds of stuff

Posted 13 October 2011 - 12:21 PM


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

Rational Individualist, Rational self-interest, Individual Rights--limited government libertarian heavily influenced by Objectivism


#17 Brant Gaede

Brant Gaede

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 15,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tucson, AZ
  • Interests:All kinds of stuff

Posted 13 October 2011 - 12:26 PM

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!

Rational Individualist, Rational self-interest, Individual Rights--limited government libertarian heavily influenced by Objectivism


#18 Michael Stuart Kelly

Michael Stuart Kelly

    $$$$$$

  • Root Admin
  • 20,065 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 October 2011 - 12:28 PM

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

Know thyself...


#19 George H. Smith

George H. Smith

    $$$$$$

  • VIP
  • 5,610 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bloomington, IL
  • Interests:Books, ideas, jazz, chess, and intelligent people

Posted 13 October 2011 - 12:39 PM

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

#20 George H. Smith

George H. Smith

    $$$$$$

  • VIP
  • 5,610 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bloomington, IL
  • Interests:Books, ideas, jazz, chess, and intelligent people

Posted 13 October 2011 - 12:40 PM

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 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users