Palin links Obama to "terrorist"

[Despanan]

I'm very much against might makes right, but do acknowledge that force is needed to secure freedom in many situations.

Using force to protect yourself, your country, or your freedom is something I whole heartily support. Using force to impose your will upon a weaker group of people is something I do not support.

If that weaker group decides then to rise up and kick the crap out of the imperialist oppressors, well, that would be something I support.

Okay, that's certainly a valid view, but that goes against what you've previously stated (that context is irrelevant and violence is always justified if it's for a "Cause").

Now, it would seem, with your current line of logic, that now you're amending this to mean that violence is always justified if it's for a cause and used by a weaker group against a stronger group (sort of a "The underdog is always right" scenario) Am I correct in assuming this? Because otherwise it would seem that you're going back on the whole "Post-modernist "all violence is the same" sentiments you originally expressed. If it's suddenly an oppressed group rising up against an oppressing group, then when it comes to violence context really matters.

Honestly I'm not trying to be a bastard here; I'm trying to understand where you're coming from. Once again does the context of violence matter or not?

[CptSternn]

It always matters. Its all about the context. I should have been more clear on my use of the word 'cause'. Robbing resources from a third world country is not a cause. Invading a nation to setup a new government you control is not a cause.

Defending your family, your country, your freedom - those are what I would consider proper causes to follow.

At the end of the day, you have to use a bit of commonsense. What would the average person think. Thats the question you have to ask yerself.

Could I stand in front of a group of other people from around the world and justify my actions? Could my actions be supported by the founders of my country? Is what I am doing moral and could I stand in front of my maker and support what I am doing?

Thats how you define a cause.

Greed does not count.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

It always matters. Its all about the context. I should have been more clear on my use of the word 'cause'. Robbing resources from a third world country is not a cause. Invading a nation to setup a new government you control is not a cause.

Defending your family, your country, your freedom - those are what I would consider proper causes to follow.

At the end of the day, you have to use a bit of commonsense. What would the average person think. Thats the question you have to ask yerself.

Could I stand in front of a group of other people from around the world and justify my actions? Could my actions be supported by the founders of my country? Is what I am doing moral and could I stand in front of my maker and support what I am doing?

Thats how you define a cause.

Greed does not count.

Okay, once again that's a valid view, and for the most part I agree with it.

The problem is that it's in direct conflict with this:

America goes out of its way to try and separate its state sponsored violence from other forms of violence. The reality is, a bomb is a bomb. A bullet is a bullet. You can claim your side is 'right' in your cause because you back it, but don't expect the rest of the world to swallow that tripe.

This:

Again, your missing the point. Either you say ALL bombings are justified or NONE are. You can't pick and choose and then expect the rest of the world to fall in line.

This:

I believe everyone should stand up for what they believe in, and if that means bombing someone then so be it.

and a number of other similar statements you have made.

My point here (as I stated earlier) is that you can't use postmodern sentiments like "A bomb is a bomb and a bullet is a bullet" selectively when arguing ethics without your argument becoming intellectually bankrupt. (In this case you seem to be using them to argue that the United States is wrong when it uses violence, but the Weather Underground is right.) Here's why (In a nutshell):

Premise 1: "A Bomb is a bomb and a bullet is a bullet"/All violence is the same, context is irrelevant/A carbomb used by a terrorist is no different from a bomb dropped from a military plane.

Now If you embrace this premise about the nature of violence, you can only draw 2 logically consistent conclusions about it:

Conclusion one: All violence is the same therefore all violence is justified.

or

Conclusion two: All Violence is the same therefore no violence is justified.

Now, let's try a different premise:

Premise 2: "Context is important when considering the ethics of violence"/All violence is not the same. Target, Method, and Intention Matter.

Now there's only one conclusion you can draw logically from this Premise:

Conclusion three: All violence is not the same therefore violence is sometimes justified and sometimes not depending upon the situation.

You can't use Premise #1 to argue for conclusion #3 because then all of your decisions as to the ethics of violence would be arbitrary and illogical. If all violence is the same, then there's no way to qualify it and decide who is right and who is wrong because the situation doesn't matter.. (Conclusion #1 leads inevitably to might makes right as well)

Similarly you cannot use Premise #2 to argue for conclusion #1 or #2 because once again your decisions would be arbitrarily one way or another and not grounded in any sort of logic. If context is important in determining the ethics of violence, then all violence is not the same. If all violence is not the same, then there's no way that you can apply one ethical point of view to all violence, because you're contradicting your own premise.

Now I suppose you could physically just ignore the logic behind that and continue to use premise #1 to justify conclusion #3 (or vice versa) and hope that no one listening to you realizes that, but that would be intellectually dishonest. That's the difference between a point of view, and rhetoric.

Now, I don't think that you were purposely being intellectually dishonest. Lots of people use logically inconsistent arguments and get away with them every day. The particular one you were using sounds really good on the surface, but when you think about it like this you realise that it is inherently an irrational argument.

knowing is half the battle.

[CptSternn]

No, all violence IS the same. Its just some should be supported based on the merit of the cause while other violence is should be condemed. On the same token, you can't claim some violence is not real violence. Its all the one. I'm not saying just because I support it in some ways that it makes it any less destructive, it just makes it tolerable.

[Despanan]

Yeah, but that's just a roundabout way of saying premise #2. I have no problem with that, so long as you don't use premise #1 to justify conclusion #3 (which you seem to be doing).

Unless you're using premise #1 and drawing from it Conclusion #2 and conclusion #3. Sort of a "All violence is wrong but it's less wrong if it works to achieve my goals" but not only is that hypocritical, it invalidates premise #1.

I'm sorry Stern, but there's no gray area here. This is math. It's as if you told me that 2+2=5, and I showed you that in fact, 2+2=4 and you're continuing to argue that it's 5.

Look, I'm not bringing this up to embarrass you, and honestly, I don't give a damn what your politics are. This is a goth forum. No one important politically cares one whit what's decided on the Gothic.net forums (and I think when it comes to the topic, we both draw the same conclusion: Obama is not a terrorist and the republicans are just trying to scare people). What I care about is how rationally you're thinking. You're too smart a guy to fall for this crap.

Everyone here is constantly going on about injustice, be it about the tyranny of religion, or corporations over the proletariat, Nations against nations or not being able to wear a trenchcoat to school that's the theme. That's fine, that's admirable. The thing is that we as thinking human beings have to constantly and objectively monitor our thought to make sure we're thinking rationally so that our desire for justice is not perverted. Arguments like the one you made earlier are the kind of arguments that get people to think irrationally. There are people out there, who are going to do their utmost to try to make you think irrationally, because once you have a person thinking irrationally you can convince them to do anything. That's what the republicans do with their politics of fear. That's why otherwise smart, conscionable people give their money away to a swindler, or build a nail bomb in their basement, or support a needless war; they aren't thinking rationally.

Anyway, I've said my piece, The debate is not really going to go anywhere from here. Believe what you want to believe, and argue anyway you want to. I figured it was something you might want to consider.

[CptSternn]

your mixing two separate arguments mate and trying to force them into your predefined conclusions.

My views on the American invasion of Iraq do not discount my views towards Venezuela response to American aggression, which is what your saying.

I never said I felt American violence was less than violent. I said Americans have the view that their violence is not like other violence, and that they tend to overlook violence which they engage in, while calling foul when what I would consider equal violence is brought upon them.

I then stated if they are going to try and weight violence, something I disagree with, then they should weight the fact they drop tonnes of bombs on people without planes, yet feel IEDs are somehow 'dirty' tractics. That was my point. I don't get where you think I said the ideas your trying to force my statements into.

[Alain]

At the risk of drawing this out into a narking fest...

Originally Posted by CptSternn

You can't support dropping bombs from planes then bitch when someone fires off a car bomb. It's all the one.

No, it's not. One is an act of war undertaken by the military, which is influenced by the government elected by an admittedly silly electoral system. You guys really need to find a way to fix that up, soon. Anyway, it's an official act, representing the military and political actions of the government of a country, whether or not said country's citizens approve of this action.

A car bomb can be many things. It can be made by teenagers seeking highly expensive amusement. It can be made by individuals or groups who disagree with the actions of abovementioned government, and who see their only or most effective outlet as being that of mass destruction. This destruction can be merely material, centred on physical objects, or on people. They are in no way similar.

I do not support the use of any bombs, but total pacifism will not be adopted any developed country anytime soon. I realisticaly know that these things will continue to exist.

On the flip side, while I can understand how someone can reach a point where they see no other outlet than mass destruction, I do not feel the need to voice any support for such action. That said, I live in a country where there is far less discontent, and far fewer people who see violence as their only outlet. Ensuring your own personal safety is one thing, and using a car bomb to grab attention from increasingly violent and sensationalist journalists is entirely another.

Finally, drawing parallels between media-targeting "terrorists", yourself, and the Vietnam veterans disgusts me. Most of the soldiers who fought in Vietnam did not want to be there, were psychologically traumatised, and deserve more respect from our current generation than to be used flippantly as fodder for disagreements of this level on a forum.

As a side-note, I've seen a lot of double-posting. Does anyone here realise that they can use the "edit" button? Just wondering...

[Despanan]

you can't use the "Edit" button after a couple of minutes (I think it's supposed to be five, but It sure doesn't feel like five).

One of the many MANY stupid rules you'll find here.

Nice avatar.

[Alain]

Yeah, I found out about that just now, and suggested that we get more use of "edit" in the future, on the suggestions thread in the General board. Or, at least, that we amend the description at the bottom left of the page, which SAYS we can edit, but is a lie. Like cake.

^_^

[LaBelleDameSansMerci]

I think the problem is that with long periods of editable time, people will say something, then get flamed, and then go back and change their post to make the flame seem unfair.
The other thing is that if people want to quote a couple different people, they make multiple posts. It is, however, possible to quote more than one person in one post.

[Tralis]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

No, all violence IS the same. Its just some should be supported based on the merit of the cause while other violence is should be condemed. On the same token, you can't claim some violence is not real violence. Its all the one. I'm not saying just because I support it in some ways that it makes it any less destructive, it just makes it tolerable.

How can anyone argue all violence is the same with a straight face? First let's look at a very literal interpretation. Shoving someone is not the same as flaying someone, nor is it the same as using a thermonuclear device. Now, let's take the same violent act and put in different situations. If I kneecap someone who is attempting to sexually harm a member of my family the moral implications of that are very different than if I kneecap someone who owes me money or kneecap a prisoner of war for amusement. So then, in what sense can you argue all violence is the same?

[Godslayer Jillian]

This thread sucks because you're all trying to change each other's semantics to fit your argument.

[Beneath the Shadows]

Originally Posted by Saya

...then realized with horror that this tactic just might work.

Apparently not, I'd say. It's been over a week since this occurred, and Obama's lead has increased, rather than decreasing.

[Solumina]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

This thread sucks because you're all trying to change each other's semantics to fit your argument.

This thread sucks for a lot of reasons

[dead_dreams]

Sarah Palin is a racist. Who cares if Obama sounds the same as Osama?!?
thats no reason to go off and call people terrorists DX

[Resurrectus]

Originally Posted by Saya

Palin clearly stated that her source of information was the New York Times (which is a liberal newspaper). If anyone thinks that Obama is being unfairly linked to Bill Ayers, then they should criticize the New York Times (the source).

[Saya]

She cited he had links, then accused him of pallin' around with terrorists. Its a big jump from "they used to be on the same charity board" to "he is friends with terrorists and does not love America."

[Resurrectus]

Originally Posted by Saya

She cited he had links, then accused him of pallin' around with terrorists. Its a big jump from "they used to be on the same charity board" to "he is friends with terrorists and does not love America."

Obama shouldn't have closely teamed up with an unrepentant Ayers to do fundraising to begin with. It just looks fishy to the public.

[Saya]

Why? Ayers isn't a wanted man, in fact he's a respected professor, he hasn't done anything since Obama was 8, the charity was put together by a Republican, and it wasn't "closely teamed up", they just knew each other.

I know drug dealers, I used to be friends with them. Does that make me a drug dealer?

[sagicapri25]

Originally Posted by Mealla

I'm currently looking into other third party candidates because I firmly believe in voting for who I think would be the best candidate, not who everyone else is going to vote for, nor for the "lesser of two evils."

Funny, I was having a very political convo with my father this morning. He said somewhere in the middle of this convo that he had no choice but to vote for the "lesser of the two evils", and I told him I couldn't bring myself to do such a thing.

I need to vote for whom I think is qualified and meets MY requirements. He proceeded to say that that was stupid, because my vote for a third party candidate wouldn't count because "that is not what everyone else will do, and it will not work." I said "Dad, the one thing I'm sure of is that you never know. For all you know, people may be closet third-party voters, and we will have a prez that no expected to have."

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by Despanan

Fix't

They obviously don't blow things up, anymore.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

Sternn, if my poor ass ever gets cash enough to fly to Ireland, I wanna have a beer with you.

Maybe afterwards, he can fly over to the U.S and run for President.

[~~Auriel~~]

Originally Posted by Despanan

Jesus the republicans are grasping at straws.

*snip*

yeah...

My first thought exactly. It is getting down to the wire and the republicans know that they are falling behind. I think the current economic situation is what draws most people to Barak Obama rather than John McCain. I am too new to the forum to be able to post a link to back this up, however, I have read in various articles that the general populus trust Obama with the economy, at least more than McCain. I have also seen advertisements where McCain is on camera saying that he voted with President Bush 90% of the time. With that said, and the current situation of our economy, I can see why people feel this way, including myself.
I also find that Barak Obama's upbringing adds to my sense of what is needed and has been lacking in the Oval Office; someone who understands the concerns of those on welfare and the middle class.
My favorite simile is to compare a Capitalist economy to a pyramid. The largest majority of the money is held at the top, but is supported by each block all the way to the bottom. The top being your Bill Gates of people, and the bottom being waitresses, fast food workers, and grocery cashiers. We couldn't survive without the bottom of the pyramid, and therefore, we need someone who is going to look out for their interests. Which republicans are notorious for looking out for the wealthy.
It's no surprise that Palin or McCain would use terrorism or race as a last attempt to win over the American public. After all, (and again, I am too new to post links) there have been quite a few racist attitudes and actions at Palin's rallies. One video that comes to mind I saw on youtube, where an idiot was holding a stuffed monkey that had an Obama sticker across it's forehead! The reality is, this has been happening all along, it seems McCain and Palin are just trying to bring those notions forward more. I would hope that if they took a step back and looked at how they are behaving, they would realize the fools they are making of themselves and how they are making Barak Obama look that much better.