Are you with us or against us?

[mrog]

Hi All,

Yes experience can give one profound insights.

If, however, I claim support for my argument in the fact a person with experiece agrees with me , then I must also accept that people with equivalent experience who dissagree with me count against my argument.

If I discount those with experience who disagree with me then I also discount the experience itself as a factor in my argument. I can not distinguish between such people on the basis of whether or not they aggree with me and still claim that their veiws suppport my arguement because of their experience. That is circular reasoning.

I might say that having read Juize's posts I have some sympathy with those that try to reason with him.

 

[mrog]

Hi Blue Monday,

It was really only the reasoning-logic aspect of things that prompted my reply. I have no beef with ANY of the posters here and enjoy reading everyone's views.

Thanks for filling me in on the edit-business too.

 

[allan]

"If, however, I claim support for my argument in the fact a person with experiece agrees with me , then I must also accept that people with equivalent experience who dissagree with me count against my argument."

Basically true, however the nature of making an argument is often to gather sources and evidence that back up your claim, and leave for the other side the task of backing up HIS claim with supporting sources. I.e. one is not compelled to provide the other arguer with ALL views, just his own.

In other words, You Know Who (I feel like if I mention the kid's name, I'm picking on him and he's just a kid) needs to find those sources (Israeli or otherwise) to back up his own arguments, not have people do it for him. Find me a more experienced person who will back up his arguments, and then I'll listen. Not agree necessarily, but listen....

Also know that experience doesn't guarantee the same amount or quality of insight necessarily. People can interpret their experiences in different ways, and there are those who don't learn much of anything from their experiences (sad, but true).... However I believe G-man (and most people here, of ALL opinions) is pretty thoughtful, and not that sort of fool.... And hopefully when "the kid" gains more experience, he won't turn out to be either....

 

[Huitzilopochtli]

Hi all. After reading this thread entirely I must say, even in spite of your probable negative response, that i must side up with juize on this.

He is not a very skilled arguer, and most of you have taken full advantage of this, but anyway, most of your replays aren't either. You bash him because of age, nationality, experience or the lack of it, sometimes a point is established but it seems that almost everyone here comits an "ad hominem" falacy at least once.

Anyway this wasn't the original intention in this replay, nor the true reason why my view is a little more comprehensive of the attitude that juize displays.

Now first of all, don't get me wrong. I repudiate any type of violent display that ends thousands of lives in a snap. like the events on tuesday 11 in your country or like the atom bomb vanishing more than a hundred thousand lives in a second at Hiroshima.

I note that many arguments here call for something that i've coined like "justifiable violence" in few words the right to fight back.

Us international policy throught it's history has flared countless wars, sponsored countless terror regimes, inflicted injustice in many parts of the world. Military power has been always the backbone of economic power. Once the bombs stop dropping in comes the merchants, the advertisments, the industries. And this although conventional logic will say "Make the world free" or "paves the route to progress" or some other convention of the sort is not true.
Material progress for the whole world is not even conceivable in the present system.
and this for two reasons:

1) it is the intrinsic nature of capitalism to always be on top of someone, and

2)There are not even enough resources in the world to fuel a type of "American dream" trought the world
one example:

If everyone in the world had a car then the whole world would die from breathing carbon monoxide in something like a week. This is a viable theory with reserach to back it up. A car, like most other consumables (not the basic ones of course) are what can be called "created necesites" we don't really need them. Modern life has invented such necesites. The cost in terms of non-renewable resources and quality of human life is tremendous.

And then Bush says that he will not ratify the Kyoto protocols, with the pretext that the energy crisis in California calls for more supply of energy, not less energy consumption. In a few words that the problem is not in the consumption but in the supply, and backed up by the whole ideological nonsense such as "the american way of life is a sacred way of life", which means that while you can go on gloating in your "sacred american lifestyle" me and my budies back here must go back to the oil fields and get our hands dirty with underpaid jobs and exhaustive work because those americans will simply not turn off the switch arguing that their lifestyle is sacred.


Imagine a world scenario where 60% of the world's resources are consumed by 6% of it's inhabitants. This is the US.
This 6% , besides controlling the obvious economic power that this unbalance generates has also the biggest military power with which to impose all it's economic and social dogmas throught the world. Add to this a devastating mediatic aparatus and the whole world dormantly accepts it's position as the providers of such resources. one example. The world bank (which should actually be called the US-West Europe Bank) will not forgive debts that afrcan nations own, even when such debts are something like 300% the total national gross. You don't have to be a genius to observe that this generates poverty, war and death. Doesen't it sound kind of unbalanced?, and that is exactly what occurs throught the world.

I could go on, and on, and on, and on, and on. but that will be later.
I have data and arguments to back all this up should anyone be interested.

There are means, but sooner or later someone was going to through a stone back. someone somewhere was going to fight back.

but lets not forget Ghandi.. "An eye for an eye, and we will all end up blind"

 

[G-Man]

Huitzilopochtli - It's just what I've been saying for a long time - The world, despite being more advanced and despite the fact that western societies think of themselves as very advanced, the world is still ruled by the same rules that controll the jungle. The one with the power is the one that controlles everything. The US has the economical power, so they can controll world economy. US has the strongest military in the world, so they can impose their will on other countries (Do you think Iran and Syria really want to help you so much?). Today the US is like the Roman empire. Their citizens are the wealthiest, their market is the richest, their military is the strongest. The US will eventually fall, just like all empires fell when better ideas came up. But we're far from there. The Romans were an empire for about 500 years. The US has a much better basics, so they will stay in power for a thousand years. But I don't think you can come to people and tell them to give up what they achived just because others achived less. Better get used to it - For the time of our life, the US will always be the strongest.

PS
All does arguing about how important is what I'm saying - I don't think my opinions are more important then other opinions. (Better, but not more important).

 

[Dell19]

I always thought the Roman empire lasted for more like a 1000 years. I suppose it depends when you stop calling them the roman empire...Oh course during the 'dark' ages there was a mini revival with barbarosa and the holy roman empire...

Who can say what will happen in the future but if and when we go into space (to colonise), the balance could quickly change. Would America make the moon (or Mars etc) just another state?

 

[mrog]

allan- we seem to be in general aggreement about the mechanisms of the argument in question so I don't propose to go over that again.

I just want to make a few points. Firstly my post was not intended to support ANY view but was purely a comment on the nature of the argument I identified.

Secondly, I aggree that experience does not in itself guarantee any greater depth of insight. Indeed, experience can cloud the mind and even distort perception, memory- cognitive processes in general. This must be bourne in mind when appealing to someone's experience as support for our arguments. The existence of others who aggree with us does not constitute evidential support for our arguments.

Finally- on your quote

"Basically true, however the nature of making an argument is often to gather sources and evidence that back up your claim, and leave for the other side the task of backing up HIS claim with supporting sources. I.e. one is not compelled to provide the other arguer with ALL views, just his own."

This comes down to your purpose in arguing. If your purpose is to simply to defend a prestablished position, perhaps as a form of intellectual sport, then that is fine. If, however, you seek to come to a deeper understanding of the world then you MUST actively search for contrary evidence and flaws in your own arguments. This is much easier said than done- so most people raely do it and I do not claim to be any exception to this rule.

 

[starlifter]

US has the strongest military in the world, so they can impose their will on other countries (Do you think Iran and Syria really want to help you so much?).

Excellent point, and one that I won't forget in the future!!

Imagine...

Imagine a world where Nazi Germany wielded the Power - Economic, Military, Political - that the US does. Do you think they would so readily share political decisions in say, the United Nations? Moreover, would such a nation contribute BILLIONS to an organization that would not "tow the line" with it's policies? The UN is always kicking the US... and doing it with funds provided by the hardworking US taxpayer.

Imagine a world where Yassir Arafat wielded 10,000 nuclear weapons and a loathing hatred for certain tiny countries. Imagine, need I conjure up the thought, Saddam Hussein with the overwhelming military might, and massive economy of America.

Yes, Imagine a world where someone like Osama bin Laden possessed the means and the will to eradicate the "Infidels" in America and Europe. He has said all those that do not practice his perverted view of Islam are subject to his wrath, and America is the prime target merely because it is the "leader" of the heathen free world.

Imagine a Nation that so quickly uses even its own Military not just to defend and sometimes kill, but to provide humanitarian relief. Now further imagine a nation with global reach... and the answers become but one... America.

Many Nations in need are so accustomed to American aid and goodwill that rarely do thanks flow; with it's crisis resolved, the hand of Nations in need is often extended again -- not in thanks -- but for more aid... gratis and courtesy of the average American taxpayer. And perhaps the truly amazing thing is that America is there to assist again and again... and willingly reaches out to take that outstretched hand of Nations and Peoples in need.


So imagine... and when one is tempted to kick America around, consider that it uses the most awesome powers in human history not to destroy the world, or even to subjugate it... but to defend it.

 

[Huitzilopochtli]

US has the strongest military in the world, so they can impose their will on other countries (Do you think Iran and Syria really want to help you so much?).

G-Man I beleive we need to redefine the concept "helping out" since clearly it is not universal and this because at least I have a very different conception about what helping out is. At least I can say it definitely isn't imposing one's will.
About your other arguments that take heed of that "law of the jungle", well I also differ greatly from that. Sure Humanity isn't only composed of virtude, but to justify injustice because history has said it is justifiable is not acceptable. This hobessian view cuts out one of the most cherished human characteristics, and that is sociability. To say that we join in societies because of fear or the need of security or the procuration of means is to have a very reductionist view, we also need each other, psycologicaly, even ontologicaly to feel what we are, to be huma

Starlifter: I also disent with you, to beleive that the US defends the world is incorrect, your government rather only defends its own interests, and sometimes is spite of its own citizens. You want me to imagine a world where the nazis or Osama would wield a mighty military power, I guess it wouldn't be a pretty scene. But a world where human life is degraded so the resources to fuel a materialistic and shallow life can be obtained isn't pretty either. Globalization does just that, besides destroying cultural expressions worldwide and undermining every expression that rings un-american.
unfortunately i don't have much time to reply, I hope you read this and do, because this could become a very intersting discusion.

Ca niccuiz in yectla xochitli,
in yectli yan cuicatl.

Cuacuauhtzin, Aztec poet.

 

[joespaniel]

I thank everyone who has posted in this forum for a spirited and thoughtful read.

I cordialy invite everyone to read a post I composed in the What Should We Do topic on page 3. I dont have the energy to retype it here. :crazyeyes

Joespaniel

 

[starlifter]

Starlifter: I also disent with you, to beleive that the US defends the world is incorrect, your government rather only defends its own interests, and sometimes is spite of its own citizens. You want me to imagine a world where the nazis or Osama would wield a mighty military power, I guess it wouldn't be a pretty scene. But a world where human life is degraded so the resources to fuel a materialistic and shallow life can be obtained isn't pretty either. Globalization does just that, besides destroying cultural expressions worldwide and undermining every expression that rings un-american. unfortunately i don't have much time to reply, I hope you read this and do, because this could become a very intersting discusion.

It is great to welcome the viewpoint of someone from Mexico City, as I don't recall seeing Mexico before!! Don't worry, you need not "agree" with everything I or others say.

Yes, there are many mistakes America has made in the past, and indeed, it will doubtless make mistakes in the future, too. One thing that defines America's greatness is that it not only allows, but engourages dissenting opinion.

Yes, America almost always will consider it's citizens and National interests first... but more often than not, those same interests conicide with the best interests of the Free World, too.

BTW, "globalization" is not a bad word, and is rather fuzzy to begin with. Feel free to clarify with specifics, since even Americans are often split about how America should handle policy overseas. And environmentalism, urbanization, deforestation, resource consumption, etc. are intersting topics.