hello

@Lustig Andrei,

Lustig Andrei wrote:

Well, george, even in Mafia gang wars one side is frequently more honorable and likable than the other.

How the hell do you know that ?

Lustig Andrei wrote:

It is my considered opinion that there is no substantive difference between ISIS and the USA at the administrative level. The two cultures may have substantial differences but if the MOs of their administrations (i.e. the US government and the ISIS leadership) differ at all, it's only because we (US) have a position to maintain in the community of recognized world powers. ISIS is not handicapped by any such considerations.

This one mystifies me. Please explain just what is the "administrative level" at which there is "no substantive difference between ISIS and the USA". There certainly are a number of obvious differences in their manner of treating people of different or no religion, and of dealing with others who either oppose them politically or fall into their power. Beyond that, it is certainly true that both are populated by human beings, but apart from obvious trivialities like that I can't see any meaningful point in your words.

1 Reply

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

So the application of a word like "hero" rests entirely on some symbolism. And that's the insanity.

I agree that some symbolism is involved, and was very clear that I didn't use the word, but was being relatively tolerant (compared to you and Andrew) in the use of this word by unnamed others. I found the intensity of your interst in precision in thius case a bit odd. Now you have termed it "insanity" I find that even more odd.

There is an entirely legitimate symbolic component of both the definition and the common use of the word, hero. Countries and cultures have heros, some of them mythological. That's simply a fact. You appear to be seizing on a part of the definition and imputing motives you can't possibly know to unnamed others who have used it. That doesn't strike me as particularly balanced and rational either. Have you had these feelings for a long time?

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Apparently I haven't been clear.

I have no quarrel with the word or notion of heroism, george. Countless instances where I'd comfortably and respectfully (and perhaps jealously) use this word.

But in this instance we are speaking to, it's use is worse than silly because it give weight and warrant to symbolic conceptualizations that cause humans great grief.

0 Replies

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

Another interesting aspect to this was the news coverage at the time. I was watching CNN, MSNBC and CBC. All networks spoke as I'm about to describe but the US networks seemed to do it more robustly.

They referred to the memorial and to the Parliament buildings as "sacred". Again, that's entirely symbolic. None of these things are sacred to me. I frankly despise this conceptual structure with the binary opposition to 'profane'.

I don't care if someone burns the flag or if somebody poops on grandma Latham's grave. There's no harm done. My life is not worse nor is anyone's life made worse. Unless, of course, we decide to take offense. Then lots of bad crap starts to happen.

Well that amplification makes a little more sense than your previous words.

However, I think you could be a little more tolerant of others. The key structures of most governments in the world are generally given a symbolic value that transcends the value of the materials that make them up. Their real symbolic value is, of course, determined by the character of the thing or country they represent. Given my understanding of the history of mankind, Canada is a pretty good example of organized governance by humankind. Not perfect, of course, but compared to The Mongul Horde, Tamerlane, the USSR, Mao's China, the Nazis and others, I think the Canadians deserve a little slack. Terming the unfortunate Corporal a hero is a bit of a stretch, but, as he was indeed a representative of the Canadian people, and as his murderer appears to have intended the act as an assault on all of them, I think the use of the term deserves a better characterization than the "insanity" one you gave it. It appears to me your are merely trying very hard to find something to criticize in others you don't really know. Do you think the world would be a better place if we didn't show some respect for public monuments or grandmother's graves?

Evil people and systems use symbols too. That doesn't make symbols evil.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Lustig Andrei wrote:

Quote:
Well, george, even in Mafia gang wars one side is frequently more honorable and likable than the other.

How the hell do you know that ?

From personal observation. But it's really irrelevant. Neither side is ever completely in the right.

georgeob1 wrote:

Lustig Andrei wrote:
Quote:

It is my considered opinion that there is no substantive difference between ISIS and the USA at the administrative level. The two cultures may have substantial differences but if the MOs of their administrations (i.e. the US government and the ISIS leadership) differ at all, it's only because we (US) have a position to maintain in the community of recognized world powers. ISIS is not handicapped by any such considerations.

This one mystifies me. Please explain just what is the "administrative level" at which there is "no substantive difference between ISIS and the USA". There certainly are a number of obvious differences in their manner of treating people of different or no religion, and of dealing with others who either oppose them politically or fall into their power. Beyond that, it is certainly true that both are populated by human beings, but apart from obvious trivialities like that I can't see any meaningful point in your words.

Don't know what's mystifying about it. When I speak of "the administrative level" I mean the people running the ship, not the general populace. The difference in levels of religious toleration and decency toward opponents is largely illusory. I see this on the Internet daily -- most Americans apparently hate all Muslims. Government tolerance toward Muslim states would not be there, I'm sure, if we didn't need their oil. It's true that we don't publicly decapitate anyone (I don't know what we do clandestinely) but that's just a cultural difference, nothing to do with general policy. We torture prisoners. If you can see no meaningful point to my words it's because you're unwilling to admit that George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden were really brothers under the skin.

3 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

oralloy wrote:
What sort of actions? Westphalian states have the right to go to war with each other. And a Westphalian state would have the right to invite another to participate in actions on its territory.

I would like that you give me the relevant quote for that.

I'm not sure there is a quote. They retain the right to go to war simply because the treaty did not deprive them of that right.

One state acting on another's territory *with their express permission* wouldn't count as interference to begin with, due to the fact that permission was granted.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

But as said: we neither live in 1648 nor is or has been the USA an European country of that period.

That doesn't matter. All sovereign states since that time are based on what was started at Westphalia.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

The Acta Pacis [sic!] Westphalicae is online, btw.

In modern English?

1 Reply

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

The best definition I've seen yet is,
"A terrorist is a man with a bomb, but no air force."

That definition encompasses guerrilla warfare as well.

Terrorists target civilians. Guerrillas target only enemy soldiers.

0 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

Lustig Andrei wrote:

How do I know what? It is my considered opinion that there is no substantive difference between ISIS and the USA at the administrative level. The two cultures may have substantial differences but if the MOs of their administrations (i.e. the US government and the ISIS leadership) differ at all, it's only because we (US) have a position to maintain in the community of recognized world powers. ISIS is not handicapped by any such considerations.

That is appalling! You should be ashamed of yourself.

Lustig Andrei wrote:

Neither side is ever completely in the right.

Nonsense.

Lustig Andrei wrote:

We torture prisoners.

We did so only briefly, in a time of great crisis.

That torture did not make us nearly as bad as regimes who regularly torture, and do so much more severely.

It certainly does not make us as bad as the terrorists.

Lustig Andrei wrote:

If you can see no meaningful point to my words it's because you're unwilling to admit that George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden were really brothers under the skin.

Hopefully no one will ever "admit" to such an outrageously appalling falsehood.

0 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

Lustig Andrei wrote:

Don't know what's mystifying about it. When I speak of "the administrative level" I mean the people running the ship, not the general populace. The difference in levels of religious toleration and decency toward opponents is largely illusory. I see this on the Internet daily -- most Americans apparently hate all Muslims. Government tolerance toward Muslim states would not be there, I'm sure, if we didn't need their oil. It's true that we don't publicly decapitate anyone (I don't know what we do clandestinely) but that's just a cultural difference, nothing to do with general policy. We torture prisoners. If you can see no meaningful point to my words it's because you're unwilling to admit that George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden were really brothers under the skin.

Unlike you I don't claim to know what "most Americans" think of Moslems. I do know however that Moslems have been immigrating to this country from Pakistan, India, Syria and North Africa for many decades and that they have established a growing socialpresence and impact impact on the country. As a boy I worked in a grocery store for what we then called a "Syrian " Moslem, though I now know he was from Iraq. To my knowledge none have been systematically persecuted and none have had their heads cut off by folks out to make a statement of some kind. If you are unable to detect a difference here it is because you have some other problem.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Not a lot of time right now so have to skip discussion between yourself and the handsome gentleman who looks a bit like Custer.

This symbolism thing is not simple. Let me try to lay out what I'm thinking in a sequential manner.

1) Groups or communities must establish agreements and consensus simply to function as a collective. This is foundational and is what defines a group of any sort or size. Where there's no agreement/consensus, there's no group.

2) Groups (nations, clubs, political parties, etc) develop means or systems to encourage or enforce maintenance of consensus (socialization/education/indoctrination, laws, policing, penalties for violations, etc)

3) How tightly that consensus is fostered, maintained and policed/penalized varies group to group and issue to issue. The severity here is a pretty good measure of whether terms like 'totalitarian' are appropriate. One can place, with some real value, the 'conservative' ideologies or 'liberal' ideologies on this scale (which is why I might recommend, for your Halloween costume this year, george, a bushy Stalin moustache. I'm going as a French prostitute with pink eyelashes and mismatched nylons and a pipe stuffed with an illegal substance. I'm confident that both of us, in our own ways, will have fun).

4) Because we are the sort of creatures we are - human language users in complex societal structures - we use stories to pass on experiential wisdom (don't cry wolf too much) and to forward and solidify our group agreements regarding 'reality' and values (mess with God's eternal rules and you'll end up a salt pillar, bub). And here is where symbolism of the sort we're looking at, seems to come in. It appears to function as an efficient short-cut to remind group members of prior stories (with all their baggage). A flag or a statue or a building = lotsa group stuff.

5) You're right. Symbols aren't 'evil'. What they are or can be is damned dangerous (just as ideas can be dangerous - surely we are looking at two facets of the same thing). What we invest in the symbol is where the problems sit, or can sit. It depends on what we might invest in the symbol, that is, what we think it is functionally identical to. If I accept that my grandmother's grave IS my grandmother (or her essence or some such) and if some dude poops on that grave (He is pooping on my real sweet fragile granny!), then I may well act in some manner which is insane. Absolutely, completely bonkers.

I'll leave it there. The symbol isn't the thing. Conceive or act as if it is and you go straight into crazy.

1 Reply

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

I'll leave it there. The symbol isn't the thing. Conceive or act as if it is and you go straight into crazy.

A key difference between you and me is your far greater emphasis on the abstract idea of something and mine on the reality it represents. In this you arppear to be an unreformed Platonist.

I'm quite able to reverence grandma's grave, all while knowing that birds and other small critters poop on it all the time. Even if some mean fellow did the deed himself, knowingly to spite me, I would be, at most, bemused at his strange manner of expression. Beyond that both grandma and I would be unaffected.

The killer of the Canadian Guard deserves execution (or whatever they do up there) for the deliberate murder he committed. In addition it is abundantly clear that his intent was to harm the state through this symbolic act, and that there is a likely possibility of some degree of network and organization behind his deed - elements that promise a continuance of such acts or worse ones. That is an associated element that merits serious public concern and action to prevent such an occurrrence.

You appear to be focused only on the insult to a national symbol, to the exclusion of other, equally obvious, but far more important factors. While I concur that such an insult is involved, it is, at best, a superficial element of the much more significant threat of continued action I identified above. It seems to me that the only craziness here is that focus on the symbol. You appear to be assuming that any reaction to the clearly implied threat to the state and the public is merely a reaction to the symbol, and not a common-sense response to the obvious threat of continued action.

The next obvious question is just what fraction of the public reaction involves indignation over the offense to the symbol and what fraction involves concern over the obvious threat of future action. There is some of both out there and neither of us knows for sure in exactly what proportion.

I believe people are fairly intelligent and particularly sensitive to serious threats to themselves. You appear to suppose they are instead all neurotic semi lunatics, cocked and ready to draw the wrong conclusions and run off in the wrong direction in response to any stimulus. I don't know where or how you acquired this strangely eliteist view of the world, but I think it does you no good.

1 Reply

@Lustig Andrei,

.

georgeob1 wrote:

Lustig Andrei wrote:
Quote:

It is my considered opinion that there is no substantive difference between ISIS and the USA at the administrative level. The two cultures may have substantial differences but if the MOs of their administrations (i.e. the US government and the ISIS leadership) differ at all, it's only because we (US) have a position to maintain in the community of recognized world powers. ISIS is not handicapped by any such considerations.

This one mystifies me. Please explain just what is the "administrative level" at which there is "no substantive difference between ISIS and the USA". There certainly are a number of obvious differences in their manner of treating people of different or no religion, and of dealing with others who either oppose them politically or fall into their power. Beyond that, it is certainly true that both are populated by human beings, but apart from obvious trivialities like that I can't see any meaningful point in your words.

Lustig Andrei wrote:

Don't know what's mystifying about it. When I speak of "the administrative level" I mean the people running the ship, not the general populace. The difference in levels of religious toleration and decency toward opponents is largely illusory. I see this on the Internet daily -- most Americans apparently hate all Muslims. Government tolerance toward Muslim states would not be there, I'm sure, if we didn't need their oil. It's true that we don't publicly decapitate anyone (I don't know what we do clandestinely) but that's just a cultural difference, nothing to do with general policy. We torture prisoners. If you can see no meaningful point to my words it's because you're unwilling to admit that George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden were really brothers under the skin.

You may be spending far too much time on A2K and the internet generally, and losing touch with reality. There really is a meaningful difference between the United States and ISIS - at nearly all levels.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Andy wrote,

Quote:

Lustig Andrei wrote:
Don't know what's mystifying about it. When I speak of "the administrative level" I mean the people running the ship, not the general populace. The difference in levels of religious toleration and decency toward opponents is largely illusory. I see this on the Internet daily -- most Americans apparently hate all Muslims. Government tolerance toward Muslim states would not be there, I'm sure, if we didn't need their oil. It's true that we don't publicly decapitate anyone (I don't know what we do clandestinely) but that's just a cultural difference, nothing to do with general policy. We torture prisoners. If you can see no meaningful point to my words it's because you're unwilling to admit that George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden were really brothers under the skin.

I agree 100%! We have started illegal wars beginning in the 20th century and killed tens of thousands of innocent people - men, women, and children.
The numbers alone speak volumes about how our leadership involves this country in wars that are not only illegal by international standards, but by our military might - that's supposed to be available for 'defensive' purposes and not 'offensive' purposes.

The US is not a good example of good citizenship in this world. It doesn't take a genius to figure this one out! If killing one innocent child is an abomination against humanity, why not tens of thousands of innocent people that we did kill? The people of Vietnam paid a heavier price from agent orange. It impacted their genetics that produced deformed and diseased babies after the war ended. Most people don't realize the horror of war, because we've never been in the midst of one.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Not sure why you continue to misapprehend what I'm saying, george. I have to blame myself for not making it clear but don't know how I might do so.

Perhaps another time it might work out.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Thnx for the vote of confidence, Tak. Actually we had started illegal wars before the dawn of the 20th century. Our brief and glorious war with Spain was completely unjustified, an exercise in off-shore "manifest destiny" saber-rattling expansionism. Back in 1846 we provoked Mexico into firing the first shots so that our land-grab of your home state and the entire Southwest would look legit. on the surface.

1 Reply

@Lustig Andrei,

Lustig Andrei wrote:

Thnx for the vote of confidence, Tak. Actually we had started illegal wars before the dawn of the 20th century. Our brief and glorious war with Spain was completely unjustified, an exercise in off-shore "manifest destiny" saber-rattling expansionism. Back in 1846 we provoked Mexico into firing the first shots so that our land-grab of your home state and the entire Southwest would look legit. on the surface.

So true...it is what it is....

0 Replies

@blatham,

Nah, George is just difficult - as usual Smile

---

George, you might want to go away for Thanksgiving - I am invading San Francisco with some German friends.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

They retain the right to go to war simply because the treaty did not deprive them of that right.

That wasn't a topic - it was about peace:

Quote:

Invocatio Dei,
[...]After having invok'd the Assistance of God, and reciprocally exchang'd the Originals of their respective full Powers, they transacted and agreed among themselves, to the Glory of God, and Safety of the Christian World (the Electors, Princes and States of the Sacred Roman Empire being present, approving and consenting) the Articles of Peace and Amity, whereof the Tenour follows.

oralloy wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
The Acta Pacis [sic!] Westphalicae is online, btw.

In modern English?

Why should it be translated in modern English? It was a treaty signed in Osnabrück and Münster in 1648, written in the German and Latin of that period to end the 30-years war.

But I can give the English translation of 1710:

Quote:

Artikel I
Dispositio
That there be a Christian, universal and perpetual Peace, and a true and sincere Friendship and Amity between his Sacred Imperial Majesty, the House of Austria, and all his Allies and Adherents, and the Heirs and Successors of each of them, chiefly the King of Spain, and the Electors, Princes and States of the Empire, of the one side; and her Sacred Royal Majesty, and the Kingdom of Sweden, her Allies and Adherents, and the Heirs and Successors of each of them, especially the most Christian King, the respective Electors, Princes and States of the Empire, of the other side; and that this Peace be observ'd and cultivated sincerely and seriously, so that each Party may procure the Benefit, Honour and Advantage of one another, and thereby the Fruits of this Peace and Amity may be seen to grow up and flourish a- new, by a sure and reciprocal maintaining of a good and faithful Neighbourhood between the Roman Empire and the Kingdom of Sweden reciprocally

Sources for above quotes >here<

0 Replies

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

Not sure why you continue to misapprehend what I'm saying, george. I have to blame myself for not making it clear but don't know how I might do so.

Perhaps another time it might work out.

I believe I understood your words quite well. I offered a realistic and rational distinction that you had ignored, and explained it clearly. You evidently don't want to address it. That's your call and it's OK with me. However, it is childish to pretend otherwise.

Calamity is right - I am being difficult.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Look who sent me a PM?

Quote:

From Date today, Oct 28
View Profile ???????????
michelleobama001 - Hello!

http://able2know.org/topic/258126-1#post-5799799

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know