|
Is it fascism yet posted:So has been interpreting them as a reason for upheaval and war. you have a very selevtive view on religious history if you seriously claim christianity as mainly pacifist. You're the one who claimed that pacifism in Christianity is an invention of liberal humanism. Of course I recognize that glorifying war is a centuries-old interpretation of Christianity. That's how Christianity was first co-opted from a cult that refused to worship the emperor into a state religion that celebrated conquest and empire and made the emperor the divine instrument of God.
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:51 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Was serious?! Haha okay, I'll just be charitable and assume that your support of imperialism is a piss-poor troll attempting to make Christians look bad. Either way though I'm just gonna stop responding to you. I'm not Christian, but anyone who is/was ideologically opposed to the Iraq War - I'm not talking about the propaganda surrounding it, the execution, or the outcome - is at best ignorant and at worst morally monstrous. Hussein caused around a million deaths in a span of 24 years, committed genocide against the Kurds, invaded Iran, invaded and annexed Kuwait, created a monumental environmental catastrophe with the Kuwaiti oil fires, funded terrorists in the Levant, attempted to acquire ballistic missiles from North Korea, and insisted (even if at the time he lacked the ability to do so) that he would one day acquire nuclear weaponry. You could forget about half these feats and the remaining list would still constitute one of the most prolifically appalling regimes in history. You have no excuse for hiding behind phrases like "support of imperialism" when you dispute the moral and political legitimacy of the campaign against him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Actually, even in theory, granting special privileges to one ethnic-religious group is a dumbass idea, with predictable outcomes. It's not a special privilege. I'm just saying be care to how you go after the theocracy advocates lest you rule out possibility of progress.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
Peta posted:I'm not Christian, but anyone who is/was ideologically opposed to the Iraq War - I'm not talking about the propaganda surrounding it, the execution, or the outcome - is at best ignorant and at worst morally monstrous. Hussein caused around a million deaths in a span of 24 years, committed genocide against the Kurds, invaded Iran, invaded and annexed Kuwait, created a monumental environmental catastrophe with the Kuwaiti oil fires, funded terrorists in the Levant, attempted to acquire ballistic missiles from North Korea, and insisted (even if at the time he lacked the ability to do so) that he would one day acquire nuclear weaponry. You could forget about half these feats and the remaining list would still constitute one of the most prolifically appalling regimes in history. You have no excuse for hiding behind phrases like "support of imperialism" when you dispute the moral and political legitimacy of the campaign against him. You are just adorable. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:You are just adorable. This post does not a refutation of his point make, also, the smiley is really terrible and you are most likely an idiot for using it.But please, tell me more about your sweet posting
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You're the one who claimed that pacifism in Christianity is an invention of liberal humanism. oh you mean political pacifism? yeah i'd need an historical example of that. do you have a wikipedia link about christian sects who had political pacifist views, this is news to me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
I, too, call myself a leftist while slapping the imperialism label on military intervention in a impoverished and highly stratified society run by the governmental equivalent of a mafia family, the dictatorial head of which kills around 30,000 people a year.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
Hey guys, the Iraq War was justified because <list of reasons that had jack and poo poo to do with why America invaded>
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Hey guys, the Iraq War was justified because <list of reasons that had jack and poo poo to do with why America invaded> Agreed: The soundness of a decision hinges purely on the propaganda spouted by the agent making the decision.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
The campaign against him was based on fabricated evidence. The people advocating invasion essentially used the US army as their own personal tool to reshape the middle east. They made some wrong assumptions, and we now have an Iraq that is basically destroying itself. This in spite of the billions spent and hundreds of thousands of iraqi deaths. It is the greatest foreign policy failure of the US government since Vietnam. That someone in 2014 can see the Iraq Invasion as anything other than a joke speaks to the human capacity for self-deception. Incidentally, can you guess why Iraq is fracturing? It may have had something to do with Maliki stuffing shia muslims into all levels of government, thereby creating tension with the sunni and kurds! Granting power to one ethnic group over all others leads to terrible results, who knew? This might be relevant to theocratic governments! BrandorKP posted:It's not a special privilege. I'm just saying be care to how you go after the theocracy advocates lest you rule out possibility of progress. rudatron fucked around with this message at 19:16 on Jul 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
The Iraq war was a great Idea, but the execution was not so great.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
A million deaths over a span of 24 years in a country that, as of 2014, has around 30 million inhabitants? That is pretty bad ... but not as bad as the propaganda and fabricated evidence that fuel western imperialism, haha.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
Fucker posted:This post does not a refutation of his point make, also, the Yes, truly it is I who is the fool for not engaging with a clear troll post in a thread already at least half gone to poo poo. If only I'd not used casual sarcasm to indicate that I thought he was a twit who no one ought take seriously, then surely we could pursue the burning question of whether the Iraq War a great idea, or the greatest possible idea, here in a thread ostensibly about theocracy! This is a good point to make, forums poster "Fucker." I am not being sarcastic. You are not a total loving moron.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
rudatron posted:The campaign against him was based on fabricated evidence. The people advocating invasion essentially used the US army as their own personal tool to reshape the middle east. They made some wrong assumptions, and we now have an Iraq that is basically destroying itself. This in spite of the billions spent and hundreds of thousands of iraqi deaths. It is the greatest foreign policy failure of the US government in the 21st century, and at least since the Vietnam war. Peta posted:I'm not talking about the propaganda surrounding it, the execution, or the outcome
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
Hey the Iraq War is pretty great, except for the reasons we invaded, the actual objectives of the people in charge, everything about it, oh and also the outcome. But you know, great idea in theory. Why, once America noticed that Saddam was a bad guy (coincidentally right when funding his atrocities stopped advancing American political interests) my goodness we had a moral duty to stop him!
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Hey the Iraq War is pretty great, except for the reasons we invaded, the actual objectives of the people in charge, everything about it, oh and also the outcome. We had a moral duty to stop him long before the decision was made to invade. It's not my fault that it never happened. It's also not my fault that the Bush administration poorly executed the endeavor. It's been clear from the start that I've been giving Iraq as an instance to which just war theory applies. I have also never defended either the objectives of the Bush administration. It's not hard to separate my actual claims from those irrelevant details. You are really dumb, haha.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
I can run mental circles around anyone here so don't even try arguing with me
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Yes, truly it is I who is the fool for not engaging with a clear troll post in a thread already at least half gone to poo poo. If only I'd not used casual sarcasm to indicate that I thought he was a twit who no one ought take seriously, then surely we could pursue the burning question of whether the Iraq War a great idea, or the greatest possible idea, here in a thread ostensibly about theocracy! This is a good point to make, forums poster "Fucker." I am not being sarcastic. You are not a total loving moron. You're a fool for engaging him with a worthless sarcastic post that serves to reduce him to a "clear troll no one ought take seriously" because it's an opposing opinion you can't properly argue with, here, in the Debate and Discussion forum.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
Part of the 'just war' is that you can actually make the world a better place through war: The current situation in Iraq is actually much worse than under Saddam. But okay, you're pleading a special exception. On what grounds are you making this special exception? In reality, 2014 Iraq is actually the inevitable result of trying to create a nation-state without there existing a real nationality. There is nothing the US could have done or spent money on, in any realistic scenario, that would have resulted in a successful outcome. It was not a 'botched' operation, it was doomed to fail from the start. Like I'm not even arguing against Just War as a concept, but you couldn't have chosen a worse example of when making war is not necessary, and in fact is a really dumb idea. rudatron fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Jul 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
rudatron posted:The people advocating invasion essentially used the US army as their own personal tool to reshape the middle east. In my Naval Science classes I remember we spent a lot of time on just war theory, like weeks specifically on the topic of the Iraq war. We also did non-violent resistance. It's actually kind-of humorous looking back. While the origins of the ideas and alternative ideas were discussed, there was a lot of these are the navy's procedures for these things that went on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
rudatron posted:The current situation in Iraq is actually much worse than under Saddam. But okay, you're pleading a special exception. On what grounds are you making this special exception? I actually disagree with this: it depends on which sectarian group you are part of. The Kurds are much better off, the Sunnis much worse of, and the Shiites....depending on which part of the country. quote:In reality, 2014 Iraq is actually the inevitable result of trying to create a nation-state without there existing a real nationality. There is nothing the US could have done or spent money on, in any realistic scenario, that would have resulted in a successful outcome. It was not a 'botched' operation, it was doomed to fail from the start.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
Is it fascism yet posted:you have a very selevtive view on religious history if you seriously claim christianity as mainly pacifist.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
Typo posted:No it was not. If we're going to derail into Iraq talk just close the thread. America Inc. fucked around with this message at 00:36 on Jul 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
Is it fascism yet posted:oh you mean political pacifism? yeah i'd need an historical example of that. do you have a wikipedia link about christian sects who had political pacifist views, this is news to me. Are Anabaptists and Church of the Brethren too new? I think some of them don't even believe in self defense. Or am I misunderstanding your point?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
In defense of pacifism, Leo Tolstoy, author of War and Peace was an ardent believer in it. He wrote a book called The Kingdom of God Is Within You in which he explained how he believed the essential message of Christ's teaching was non-violence, to the point of martyrdom if need be. He justified this primarily by the "resist not evil" and "turn the other cheek" teachings in the sermon on the mount, as well as Christ's willingness to die without fighting. He believed all war, physical coercion, etc. to be the ultimate evil. He criticized all church traditions as compromising Jesus's true message. And he seemed to believe all of the miracles were merely symbolic. Nonetheless he considered himself a Christian first and foremost.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:I happen to be obsessed with [Nietzsche].
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
He's good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 04:50
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:He's good. E: What is Brandor's opinion? America Inc. fucked around with this message at 05:38 on Jul 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
Negative Entropy posted:I understand that many anarchists and some Christians want to embrace Nietzsche, but Nietzsche openly stated that the two ideologies were the same thing (the ultimate embodiment of slave morality/ressentiment) and he hated both. How do you reconcile the Will to Power with Jesus Christ? I have thought on this before and not come to a satisfactory answer. To me, Nietzsche is the ultimate "man without God." He is the ultimate man that lives only for himself, with just his own pride to keep him company. He rages against the night and the light. Father Seraphim Rose said it best in his book Nihilism: “Atheism, true 'existential' atheism burning with hatred of a seemingly unjust or unmerciful God, is a spiritual state; it is a real attempt to grapple with the true God.… Nietzsche, in calling himself Antichrist, proved thereby his intense hunger for Christ.” Nietzsche burned deep with a hatred; he saw the light and he chose to go away from it. His ethical work aside, I value Nietzsche as an epistemologist first and foremost. His writings about the feebleness of both philosophy and science are fantastic, as it shows the pride inherent in us all for thinking that we can understand anything. There is a famous story about St. Nicholas Planas. One day he was accused of stealing by some other priests and he stood up for them even though they had falsely accused him. He kept saying "No, no, Fr. John wouldn't do that!" and "Fr. Ephraim would never say that about me, he is a good man!" The bishop eventually said to him, "Papa Nicholas! You would say now that even Satan is good!" To which St. Nicholas replied, "Yes, of course! Without him, how would we know the depths of our spiritual fortitude?" I believe the same about Friedrich Nietzsche. Smoking Crow fucked around with this message at 06:20 on Jul 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
I'm imagining a wave of neoconservative 20-year-old post-2010 regdates about to lecture us smugly on the necessity of wars that took place when they were children. They'll all be berry unique of course, with rationales that span the gamut from theocratical to atheist. I don't know whether to drink or laugh. Is this what it means to grow old?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 05:50
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I'm imagining a wave of neoconservative 20-year-old post-2010 regdates about to lecture us smugly on the necessity of wars that took place when they were children. They'll all be berry unique of course, with rationales that span the gamut from theocratical to atheist. People that disagree with me are terrifying.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 06:22
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:To me, Nietzsche is the ultimate "man without God." He is the ultimate man that lives only for himself, with just his own pride to keep him company. He rages against the night and the light. Father Seraphim Rose said it best in his book Nihilism: “Atheism, true 'existential' atheism burning with hatred of a seemingly unjust or unmerciful God, is a spiritual state; it is a real attempt to grapple with the true God.… Nietzsche, in calling himself Antichrist, proved thereby his intense hunger for Christ.” Nietzsche burned deep with a hatred; he saw the light and he chose to go away from it. Yes Nietzsche is very interesting. He saw the "death of God", by which he meant society losing faith in God, as an absolutely crucial event for human society, which would have far reaching effects that were only beginning to unfurl. He was deathly afraid that it spelled the victory of nihilism, which would mean the tragic decline and death of the species. So, he tried to create a new and alternative philosophy, neither religious values nor nihilism, which humanity could embrace that would save it from destruction; this new humanity would be so fundamentally altered by its new guiding philosophy that it would essentially become a new, and more advanced species.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 06:39
|
|
|
If you cast Nietzsche as the ultimate other (with all the respect and special interest involved in that), then you've projected any opposition onto one dimension! To call him the ultimate 'man without God' is to both define yourself, in opposition, and man in general, as on the spectrum. When you see yourself standing up to this great other (with your spiritual fortitude and what-not), you are in the process of framing the issue as one of conflict and competing interests. That necessitates a different response then a problem about rational inconsistencies or social relations.
rudatron fucked around with this message at 11:07 on Jul 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 07:12
|
|
SedanChair posted:I'm imagining a wave of neoconservative 20-year-old post-2010 regdates about to lecture us smugly on the necessity of wars that took place when they were children. They'll all be berry unique of course, with rationales that span the gamut from theocratical to atheist. I think that you are misinterpreting what was said in such a blatant way that it almost must be deliberate. I was, of course, younger than you during the lead-up to Iraq, but what people criticized was not removing Saddam Hussein from power, but rather the prospect of imperial exploitation of Iraq afterwards, the utterly insane occupation/reconstruction proposals, the use of constantly-shifting lies to drum up support for the war, etc. If you think it's leftist to support the Ba'ath Party of Iraq, which purged all of its leftists before Saddam took power, you may be a jackass in politico's clothing. If you think it's just to believe that removing a mass-murderer and tyrant that had repeatedly invaded other nations was an inherently immoral action, you may be a crass rear end in a top hat. If you've the opinion of many cod-leftists, that having done the wrong thing once, nations/the USA should never do anything again, you've all the brainpower of a particularly stupid amoeba.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 14:16
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 14:20
|
|
|
Even if blatantly refusing to read a post isn't against the rules, it's still childish behavior, especially when your response makes no sense in comparison to what was actually said.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 14:23
|
|
|
You think it takes more than four minutes to read a paragraph of neoconservative barf?quote:If you think it's just to believe that removing a mass-murderer and tyrant that had repeatedly invaded other nations was an inherently immoral action, you may be a crass rear end in a top hat. If you've the opinion of many cod-leftists, that having done the wrong thing once, nations/the USA should never do anything again, you've all the brainpower of a particularly stupid amoeba.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 14:27
|
|
|
Every time I think this thread can't get any worse, I'm proven wrong. It's like magic. I'm now convinced that not only is god real but that he hates each of us personally.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 14:30
|
|
SedanChair posted:You think it takes more than four minutes to read a paragraph of neoconservative barf? That's not a neoconservative position. Neoconservatism is about the imposition of American/western power on other nations, on the grounds that American democracy is the best form of government. Saying that removing Saddam Hussein from power was a good thing is not inherently neoconservative, unless we are to take the position that the USA was opposing neoconservatism when it supported the Pinochet government and the Brazilian junta. Please, explain the justification under which removing Saddam Hussein, as an action in and of itself, is a morally neutral or immoral action.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 14:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:51 |
|
|
Most neoconservatives don't call themselves neoconservative.quote:Please, explain the justification under which removing Saddam Hussein, as an action in and of itself, is a morally neutral or immoral action.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 14:33
|
|
