Chris Grieb Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 (edited) Well, Bob, this thread is more about style and method of presentation than how to fight a war. Peikoff came across as an hysteric which gutted his whole argument. If the U.S. hadn't bombed Japan, a naval blockade would have starved millions to death. Harris and LeMay were like vicious attack dogs both controlled and unleashed by their masters. If LeMay had had his way during the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, there would have been a nuclear exchange that would have quite likely escalated into general thermonuclear war.You can't put a smiley face on war and feel good about it.--BrantBrant; May I recommend Max Hastings book Retribution which is about the last two years of World War II in the Pacific. Hastings talks about LeMay bombing of the Japanese cities. He also say that US submarine had provided a blockade of the Japanese main islands. The Japanese government caused a huge amount of suffering by their refusal to recognize that they had been defeated by the early part of 1945. Hastings says the Japanese government still thought they could retain Manchuria before the atomic bombs were dropped on two Japanese cities.The blockade already existed. There were suggestions of not invading the main islands but of just keeping the blockade on.I agree with your last comment about not putting a smiley face on war Edited June 22, 2008 by Chris Grieb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 Bob,When you gush about the glories of slaughtering women and children because of righteousness, would you enslave them?If not, why not?What makes killing righteous and enslavement not righteous?Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike11 Posted June 21, 2008 Author Share Posted June 21, 2008 Bob,When you gush about the glories of slaughtering women and children because of righteousness, would you enslave them?If not, why not?What makes killing righteous and enslavement not righteous?MichaelI sense something about the moral superiority of the Jews in not enslaving people, as opposed to the inferior British, Afircans, Chinese, Native Americans, Australian Aborigines, Japanese, Siberians, Aryans, Arabs, Mayans, East Indians and every other Goy on the planet ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 Bob,When you gush about the glories of slaughtering women and children because of righteousness, would you enslave them?If not, why not?What makes killing righteous and enslavement not righteous?MichaelWhen the other side starts the violence, then it is up to the wronged party to avenge it. It is as simple as that. If thine enemy smite thee on thy cheek, tear his head off. For any eye and eye. For a wound a wound. For a life a life. Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjohnson Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 When the other side starts the violence, then it is up to the wronged party to avenge it. It is as simple as that. If thine enemy smite thee on thy cheek, tear his head off. For any eye and eye. For a wound a wound. For a life a life. Ba'al ChatzafGood advice for primitives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 When the other side starts the violence, then it is up to the wronged party to avenge it. It is as simple as that. If thine enemy smite thee on thy cheek, tear his head off. For any eye and eye. For a wound a wound. For a life a life.Bob,That did not answer my question.Isn't slavery vengeance? Say, wouldn't enslaving a man's wife and children be great vengeance against him? What's the operating standard?Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 When the other side starts the violence, then it is up to the wronged party to avenge it. It is as simple as that. If thine enemy smite thee on thy cheek, tear his head off. For any eye and eye. For a wound a wound. For a life a life. Ba'al ChatzafGood advice for primitives.Why is it good advice?--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjohnson Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 Sarcasm Brant. It means if you want to act like primitive tribes or children then this fits the bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 Sarcasm Brant. It means if you want to act like primitive tribes or children then this fits the bill.Opps! Problem with Internet postings. You can't hear it.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfly Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 When I saw that video I just burst out laughing, it's so bad that it becomes comical. Mr. Rational Philosophy Himself like a raving lunatic, continuously interrupting the other fellow with his rants. If it were a movie, you'd say that the characterization of the bad guy had been exaggerated. I think even many ARI-ans must be embarrassed by this spectacle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 The fiasco of that interview is a good lesson in what happens when you isolate yourself from the world.I almost felt sorry for Peikoff several times. He has built up a structure around him where he is deified by yes-men and women on pain of excommunication. Thus if he gets angry and emphatic, he is used to seeing the world shake around him and people cower in fear (or smirk at the one he is railing against). He literally didn't know how to handle O'Reilly interrupting his rants and saying: "Take a breather, Doctor." He looked confused and disoriented at those times, although he did recover pretty quickly. It's kind of embarrassing that this happened more than once. Strangely enough, he seemed to be more comfortable when O'Reilly mocked him by calling him Dr. Strangelove, since (I think he thinks) that this could only be utterred by an enemy of Objectivism or someone seriously confused. He has encountered that kind of thing before, so it was familiar.One fact is for certain. He cannot excommunicate Bill O'Reilly, so his fire and brimstone foot-stamping came off as comedy, not something terrible and fearful. If he wants to take on competent interviewers of that caliber and convince them (and their audience) of anything, he would do well to hire himself some coaching—but most of all, listen to his coaches.I don't have high hopes of that ever happening.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guyau Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Hi Roger,I have a follow-up question to your Post #19.As I recall, when Peikoff was on TV five years ago proposing that we attack Iran, he was spotlighting the proposition that it is better that enormous numbers of innocent Iranians be killed collaterally than that one American soldier be killed. Do you have any thoughts on that proposition as a general principle?Peikoff was very concerned in that interview about the loss of American military personel if we were to invade Afghanistan. We all were. (We knew who had attacked us, and we knew he had meant to draw us into war with him on his terrain, where he thought he could win. Nevertheless, and notwithstanding our unsureness of the usefulness of the Northern Alliance, over 90% of us thought the day after the 9/11 attack that we should send our military to Afghanistan and get those guys in their hideout and headquarters.) Peikoff also expressed the view that the Afghan people would wrongly suffer were we to attack their country to get our enemies. He pleaded on that particular O'Reilly show that we not attack Afghanistan.As I mentioned in my earlier post, I can't remember why Peikoff thought that our correct military target after the 9/11 attack should be Iran and not Afghanistan. Whatever his reasoning to that target, Iran, he wanted to urge that once our country goes to war with another country, such as Iran, one implication from Rand's moral philosophy is this: It is better that enormous numbers of innocent Iranians be killed collaterally than that one American soldier be killed.Do you have any thoughts about that issue? Is Peikoff's principle morally sound? Didn't Rand write something once that was in synch with this principle?StephenDoes anyone have a tape of Peikoff's appearance on O'Reilly? I'd be very interested in hearing it.Barbara Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike11 Posted June 23, 2008 Author Share Posted June 23, 2008 Yah, I knew someone brought it up but couldn't remember where. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Strangely enough, he seemed to be more comfortable when O'Reilly mocked him by calling him Dr. Strangelove, since (I think he thinks) that this could only be utterred by an enemy of Objectivism or someone seriously confused. He has encountered that kind of thing before, so it was familiar.MichaelDr. Strangelove! That is rich. Miss Rand! I can walk!Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Stephen,Thanks for putting an approximate date on this interview. The person who posted it on YouTube did not give any information at all.Incidentally, my favorite part of the interview was the last two statements, which could have come straight out of a Kurt Vonnegut novel. After O'Reilly called Peikoff Dr. Strangelove, and Peikoff berated O'Reilly for saying that in our system in the USA civilians control the military and that's how it should be, and Peikoff (incorrectly as it turned out) claimed that if we did not kill women and babies in Afghanistan (but preferably Iran), we would see American women and babies killed in the USA (meaning more after 9/11), with both interrupting each other nonstop, here is how it ended:Peikoff: Let's have pity for Afghanistan and take on Iran.O'Reilly: All right. I gotta run. Thanks very much. (pause) When we come back... I don't know how to make this transition. (chuckle) The Miss America Pagaent was...Then the tape cut off. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike11 Posted June 23, 2008 Author Share Posted June 23, 2008 I would have been EPIC had he said "Miss Teen South Carolina" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dailey Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 (edited) ~ Having a need to kill 'innocents' (defined here, in this context, as non-combatants who are living under the power of the Enemy) is to be revulsed...just as having a need to saw off one's pinned arm to save one's own life; that is, IF it is a need (properly determinable ONLY by the military), and not just an alternative quick fix.~ To be sure, that we have a Civilian (1st 'Citizen', need I add?) in charge of the military is not only nice, it's a purposely built-in part of our checks-balances system: no military 7 DAYS IN MAY military coups to worry about, plus, the constant reminder that the military is accountable to the citizens it's (ostensibly) there to protect...from foreigner attacks.~ An innocent non-combatant non-citizen foreigner is not to be compared in worth in lethal situations to a citizen...or combatant...of 'our' side. To do so is to prepare for seppuku.LLAPJ:D Edited June 24, 2008 by John Dailey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dailey Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 (edited) ~ I'm with Ba'al on every point he made on this; I also see no point in analogizing to slavery, other than what survivors of us will have to put up with if we lose as a result of Marquis de Queensbury rules about 'innocent' foreigners who've seen no worth in acquiring official protection from the U.S. (via dual-'citizenry'); indeed, their priorities show an opposite evaluation of everything 'U.S.'~ Finally, LP's appearance has been discussed; his conclusion has been discussed; have his r-e-a-s-o-n-s been discussed?~ BTW, this whole argument is moot,, since no forseeable US President will attack Iran. They won't have to: --> Israel will initiate it when Iran gets threatening enough to them. You can bet that all candidates, as well as Bush, are aware of this.LLAPJ:D Edited June 24, 2008 by John Dailey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 ~ I'm with Ba'al on every point he made on this; I also see no point in analogizing to slavery...John,Well I do from an epistemological basis. It's called liking clear definitions. I don't like intellectual fog.If you have a definition of human being that does not include "an end in himself" as part of the characteristic, I am interested in hearing it.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike11 Posted June 25, 2008 Author Share Posted June 25, 2008 (edited) I was walking down the street the other day with a friend at my side. We bumped into a homeless man screaming about the chip the government had in his brain. When I told him that was unlikely he scuffed and accused me of being an alien. He included everything from the formation of Israel to sun spots as evidence of my unearthly origin. As we walked away I turned to my friend and said "Wow, what a nut job."Funny thing, my friend didn't expect me to counter argue the lunatic's points.We're talking about someone who watched the Titanic and had this to say -I kept asking my twelve year old daughter, "Why does Rose want to commit suicide?" And then we find out that she's bored by having to go to parties. Poor girl! Such a stultifying life! She would have had such a much better life in Steerage, where they did the folk music, and tossed each other around. And also, she learned how to spit. She would have been way ahead in Steerage. And then we find out that she's really a prostitute.And there was Rosie, left as an old lady all by herself, and her contribution to the end of the whole thing, you know, you see her, was looking for this diamond, and it turns out at the very end of the three plus hours that Rosie had the diamond all along.And what does Rosie do with this diamond, the cost of which just surpasses the mind? She threw it away! In the last act of the movie, she throws it back! Now I don't know, maybe she's dissociating herself from the evil rich.Peikoff doesn't need refutation, he needs pills for his dementia.Call it an example of "philosophical detection". Edited June 25, 2008 by Joel Mac Donald Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 ~ I'm with Ba'al on every point he made on this; I also see no point in analogizing to slavery...John,Well I do from an epistemological basis. It's called liking clear definitions. I don't like intellectual fog.If you have a definition of human being that does not include "an end in himself" as part of the characteristic, I am interested in hearing it.MichaelDarn. I had, "A human being is Brant Gaede." I guess that's too "end in himself" and you're not "interested." At least I'm a fairly good facsimile. No? No! Then you agree with Lindsay Perigo!--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 I find Leonard Peikoff highy entertaining when I've had too many and can disregard the broader context. I found Lindsay Perigo entertaining when I realized they had the same initials. Not much, but it's something.--Brantthe one and true master of argumentum ad hominem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Libertarian Party? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Libertarian Party?Leonard Peikoff-Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Brant,I knew that. I was making another suggestion.I should have been clearer.I find it ironic that both of these guys have the same initials of Libertarian Party for the obvious reasons.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now