[Rictor]

Originally posted by CP5670


Of course, but that's not "fair" and "just," eh? It's because the whole concept of determining morality in practice depends on intentions. If you base it just on actions, then there becomes the problem of what exactly did the "bad thing," since there are usually a number of people, objects, scientific laws, etc. responsible for one of these actions, and all of them could concievably be labelled as bad.

Yes, but you can't very well hold gravity responsible. You could, but that would be a very short court case. Humans are held resposible for their actions.

I don't know what the laws say, but that is quite irrelevant; we are talking about what common morality dictates, and depending on how exactly the other guy fell out of the helicopter, you may or may not be viewed as "bad" by the public. Also, what you fail to realize is that there are no moral absolutes. Suppose I say that going on a murdering spree is "good," and that sitting on chairs is "bad." Can you prove it to be otherwise? I think not. Everyone can have their own ideas about these things. Furthermore, even if we hypothetically assume that certain actions are good and others are bad, so what? That doesn't mean anyone will follow them, and especially not governments, which are usually smart enough to know what will work towards their long-term goals and what will not. As for the last sentence, in that case, it is indeed a very scary place to live in, and trying to make it less scary by defining moral absolutes to make yourself feel better is only going to make you look silly in arguments. Go into math like I have to relieve the scariness. [/B]

Yes, but if you were to say, "killing is good", very few people would tend to agree with you. There are, like it or not, common moral grounds engrained within the human consciousness. We all know if an action is good or bad. Thats the method by which we judgde actions. And the human consciousness says killing is bad. In order to live in a civilized society, we must find common moral grounds, and those present and known by all human beings are better than an arbitrary set of moral codes.

Yes it does, to the US government, because its objective is to protect US citizens. I don't know what every government "should" do, but this is simply what they do. And it is no more right or wrong than what you are proposing. This concept of "basic human rights" is quite silly if you think of it with an open mind, since why not then have the basic chair rights that I talked of, or basic rights for any other conceivable object? People get rights from the governments not because they "deserve" them, but because if they don't get them they will revolt. If they are incapable of doing that for some reason, then they will not get the rights; it's as simple as that.[/B]

Well, we should always strive for the ideal. Yes I know that governments don't do the right thing, but they should, and whenever they don't, that should be considered a "bad thing". You can never get better if you accept the current state of affairs as good enough.

And people don't get rights from their government. People are born with rights. Governments may try to take them away, but never think that it is they who give them in the first place.

Perhaps because it is anything but. I am quite fine with anti-American sentiments, but what really gets funny is that they are frequently based on the most ridiculous of excuses, and moreover, recycled excuses that have been dealt with several times in the past in this place. [/B]

I wouldn't say that its exactly anti-American. Its not directed at the people of America, but rather the government.  I would be fine with people complaining about the Serbian or Canadian governments, if their complaints were legitimate.

[CP5670]

Yes, but you can't very well hold gravity responsible. You could, but that would be a very short court case. Humans are held resposible for their actions.

Why not? Why must humans be responsible but not gravity?

Yes, but if you were to say, "killing is good", very few people would tend to agree with you. There are, like it or not, common moral grounds engrained within the human consciousness. We all know if an action is good or bad. Thats the method by which we judgde actions. And the human consciousness says killing is bad. In order to live in a civilized society, we must find common moral grounds, and those present and known by all human beings are better than an arbitrary set of moral codes.

So you are just going by majority of opinion to determine this? I suppose the sun went around the earth 600 years ago, then. Besides your "rules" most certainly do not apply to all human beings, or else we would not have wars, terrorists or anything else like that. A better explanation of it all that would account for this is that we are trained to think of certain actions as good or bad based on our social and cultural surroundings while we grow up. Also, we aren't interested in what it takes to live in a civilized society - that's an entirely different issue - but rather what is universally true or false, and that is where all this fails.

Well, we should always strive for the ideal. Yes I know that governments don't do the right thing, but they should, and whenever they don't, that should be considered a "bad thing". You can never get better if you accept the current state of affairs as good enough.

But not everyone thinks that what you are saying is any better; some, like myself, think it is merely stupid. And you can consider it a "bad thing," but what difference will that make in the actual state of affairs?

And people don't get rights from their government. People are born with rights. Governments may try to take them away, but never think that it is they who give them in the first place.

I suppose ants, chairs, computers and so on are born/manufactured with rights too then. Why don't they get any rights?

I wouldn't say that its exactly anti-American. Its not directed at the people of America, but rather the government. I would be fine with people complaining about the Serbian or Canadian governments, if their complaints were legitimate.

By extension though, that goes for most of the people as well, since the government's actions are supposed to (and at the moment, do) reflect the opinions of the majority of the people here. But as I said, it would not matter to me who you are complaining about if the complaints actually had any rational backing behind them.

[Rictor]

You see, this is why I don't argue with you. Becuase you are simply not operating on the same wavelength as I am.

Why don't chairs have right? And saying that makes you smater than me? Can you prove the sky is blue? Probably not. But there must be, in order to live a normal life (or any sort of life actually) common grounds for people. Things which are assumed to be true. Axioms if you will. There are things which are non negotiable, and the fact that humans have rights is one of them. I do not requier proof for absolutely everything which I take as true. Humans just work that way.

[CP5670]

Sure, you are free to believe that if you like, but my point is that why are you using this as reasoning to conclude that the US is universally "evil" when you know that your rules do not hold for everyone? If you have a rational basis for complaning about something, then go ahead, but otherwise you are only making a fool of yourself. But it does create fun for me.

Besides, you still have not explained exactly why the end results can be "good" or "bad," but any human intentions that lead to those do not count (I agree with the second part, but most people would not). Suppose that you see a certain pedestrian while driving, and the same guy later murders five people. By this logic, you are also partly responsible for the murders, even if your intentions were otherwise, since you could have run over the guy and saved the other five people. There is also the common example I hear they give in law school; suppose a guy pushes another guy off a ten-story building, and then is shot by a third guy as he is falling down, who is responsible for the guy's death?

[Kamikaze]

I think this discussion is pretty funny, and I think I'll drop a few lines in

Originally posted by Rictor

Why don't chairs have right? And saying that makes you smater than me? Can you prove the sky is blue? Probably not. But there must be, in order to live a normal life (or any sort of life actually) common grounds for people.

You're taking multiple unrelated concepts and trying to  merge them into some cohesive, rational point. Except I don't see any rational point in sight. You seem to be saying that even though CP cannot (supposedly) prove the sky is blue (I would agree, it is not something which can be shown rigorously) people need common grounding. I don't see where that came out of.  (The first two questions seem to totally unrelated to the conclusion so I ignored them)

But there must be, in order to live a normal life (or any sort of life actually) common grounds for people.
 Things which are assumed to be true. Axioms if you will. There are things which are non negotiable, and the fact that humans have rights is one of them. I do not requier proof for absolutely everything which I take as true. Humans just work that way.

Can you try to figure out whether you're trying to find absolutes or society standards?

[neo_hermes]

Originally posted by Rictor
Oh boy. John Ashroft must be wetting himself with glee. The police state inches ever closer.

And for those of you who say that they need additional information should read the full article. It says that if you're flagged red, you will be taken into police questioning and maybe arrested. All that, just becuase you fit what they believe to be a pattern. There is no actual crime that needs to be commited.

So if I'm travelling to New York, on bin Laden's birthday, with my friend who is a Muslim, and I have a criminal record for drunk driving. Well then, I guess I'm terrorist.

This doesn't actully improve security. It only makes people feel safer. Anyone with half a brain can avoid these patterns, if that is their intention. I also like how they try to scare people: "It not only insures that you're not sitting next to a terrorist, but also that you're not sitting next to an axe murderer". Oh yeah, cause theres obviously hundreds of axe murders each year. Its the latest fashion. What are we living in 1850 now?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by CP5670


Of course, but that's not "fair" and "just," eh? It's because the whole concept of determining morality in practice depends on intentions. If you base it just on actions, then there becomes the problem of what exactly did the "bad thing," since there are usually a number of people, objects, scientific laws, etc. responsible for one of these actions, and all of them could concievably be labelled as bad.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yes, but you can't very well hold gravity responsible. You could, but that would be a very short court case. Humans are held resposible for their actions.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know what the laws say, but that is quite irrelevant; we are talking about what common morality dictates, and depending on how exactly the other guy fell out of the helicopter, you may or may not be viewed as "bad" by the public. Also, what you fail to realize is that there are no moral absolutes.  Suppose I say that going on a murdering spree is "good," and that sitting on chairs is "bad." Can you prove it to be otherwise? I think not. Everyone can have their own ideas about these things. Furthermore, even if we hypothetically assume that certain actions are good and others are bad, so what? That doesn't mean anyone will follow them, and especially not governments, which are usually smart enough to know what will work towards their long-term goals and what will not. As for the last sentence, in that case, it is indeed a very scary place to live in, and trying to make it less scary by defining moral absolutes to make yourself feel better is only going to make you look silly in arguments. Go into math like I have to relieve the scariness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yes, but if you were to say, "killing is good", very few people would tend to agree with you. There are, like it or not, common moral grounds engrained within the human consciousness. We all know if an action is good or bad. Thats the method by which we judgde actions. And the human consciousness says killing is bad. In order to live in a civilized society, we must find common moral grounds, and those present and known by all human beings are better than an arbitrary set of moral codes.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes it does, to the US government, because its objective is to protect US citizens. I don't know what every government "should" do, but this is simply what they do. And it is no more right or wrong than what you are proposing. This concept of "basic human rights" is quite silly if you think of it with an open mind, since why not then have the basic chair rights that I talked of, or basic rights for any other conceivable object? People get rights from the governments not because they "deserve" them, but because if they don't get them they will revolt. If they are incapable of doing that for some reason, then they will not get the rights; it's as simple as that.[/B]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Well, we should always strive for the ideal. Yes I know that governments don't do the right thing, but they should, and whenever they don't, that should be considered a "bad thing". You can never get better if you accept the current state of affairs as good enough.

And people don't get rights from their government. People are born with rights. Governments may try to take them away, but never think that it is they who give them in the first place.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps because it is anything but. I am quite fine with anti-American sentiments, but what really gets funny is that they are frequently based on the most ridiculous of excuses, and moreover, recycled excuses that have been dealt with several times in the past in this place.   [/B]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I wouldn't say that its exactly anti-American. Its not directed at the people of America, but rather the government. I would be fine with people complaining about the Serbian or Canadian governments, if their complaints were legitimate.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by StratComm
Yes, this system is controversial. What that means is that the system that actually gets put into place will be far less extreme. It also sounds like this has some basis in that failed national security catalogue that the Pentagon (or the CIA, can't remember off hand) was planning to compile, but without that I can't see how efficient this system would be. By due process of law and the constitutionality of such a system, it would have to be slanted towards letting people through rather than holding them. I can see a lot of folks getting thrown into "yellow," which just takes the random out of random screenings, but "red" I would think would take something like being wanted for a serious crime or being on the terrorist watch list. Note the wanted, being convicted and serving time for a serious crime would not set off the alarm.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I think you are reffering to the Total Information Awareness database, later renamed Terrorist Information Awareness, headed by DARPA. I find that any sort of "pattern searching" is not only ineffective but also discriminatory. Now, discrimination isn't that big of a thing, but nabbing someone based solely on him fitting a pattern is.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[/i]
And we have once again successfully entered that grey realm of International politics, with the US isn't under a "law" thing. A debate I'm not eager to see again and again. First off, the US government does act in the interest of its own citizens first and foremost, as it should. It does this on a national level, through social programs, laws, and security, and it does this internationally through diplomacy and war. So the sanctions on Iraq, which is a favorite soft spot for anti-american sentiment, were not the best idea in the long run. Then again, they were under UN mandate (yes, I know US political pressure led to the enactment of the sanctions but they were also approved, no matter how grudgingly, by at least the 8 other members of the Security Council). And it's not like we could just lift the sanctions while Saddam was in power, as that can be seen as a concession and can lead to far worse problems. (Watch 13 days, a similar example for those of you who remember the cold war) Saddam did, after all, try to build a cannon capable of shelling the US as its explicit purpose, so no matter how much anyone argues otherwise he was rightly a percieved threat. And for the record equating flying an airliner into a 100 story office building with the relatively few civilian casualties caused by a war is some very f****d up reasoning.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Civilian Deaths
9/11 : 3000
Iraq: 7000

very few eh?
And what kind of threat would lifting sanctions during Saddam's reign represent? Do you honestly think sanctions prohibited Saddam from aquiring the weapons that he needed? Sanctions affect the people first and the military last.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[/i]
And too, while I'm on the subject, I grow VERY tired of the anti-American sentiments that are so often vocally expressed on this forum. I would have you know that I am a civicly responsible citizen of the United States. I believe that our government, despite its flaws, is one of the best in the world. I support my nation's soldiers and I support my nation's leaders, even if I do not wholeheartedly agree with them on several major issues. I don't support the US-led war in Iraq as it was sold to the world (while I do see it as ultimately being a good thing for the Iraqi people, and it would have been even more so if the military brass had done better planning for post-war Iraq), but now that we are there I believe that we should stay there until the situation is stabalized. Leaving now would be irresponsible both the to the lives lost in the war and to the citizens of both countries. Take that as you will, those are my stances and they are not going anywere.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I can understand that you do not want to see your country portrayed in a bad light, but its not exactly like the arguements are baseless and mere namecalling. So far, I think that any anti-American sentiment shown here has been very specific and very relevant. Why should someone not criticize somthing if he believes his criticism to be factual and correct?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by CP5670

But you see, there is nobody to stop it from doing all that (and by extension, no enforced law to label it as a criminal), and so the US government is neither a criminal nor a policeman; it just does stuff. As for the last part, um yeah of course; that's why it is called the US government and not some other country's government.  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



So, if I find out that, by the letter of the law, killing a person by dropping them from a helicopter into a minefield (just using an example that is unlikely to happen, to illustrate a point) is not wrong, then doing so does not make me a criminal? Morality does not depend on definitions or enforcement. What you fail to realize is there are moral absolutes. Good and evil if you will. Were we, as a soeciety, to view things only in terms of effectiveness, it would indeed be a very scary place to live in.

Aswell, rights and freedoms of people are universal. What is regarded as "basic human rights" (which I assume includes not being killed) is applicable to all humans. Not just citizens of a nation. Every government should treat every person as one of its citizens, because place of birth is so arbitrary. Just because I was born in say, Baghdad, does not mean my life is worth less than someone born in New York.

hehe CP. Due to your position of simply not giving a crap about justice, fairness, freedom, peace etc (or rather your, in my mind, flawed defentions) and disimliar priorities, I kinda just tend to ignore your opinions. Sorry about that, but you're spending waaaay to much time in the world of math, and trying to apply the same rules to human society.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Woolie Wool


You can shut about the "bombed" part. Nobody has the right to blow up INNOCENT PEOPLE ON PURPOSE. Yes, the Al-Qaeda ****s wanted to kill as many innocent people as possible. We try to cause as few civilian casualities as possible, but there will always be some, it being war and all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Your second sentence contradicts the rest. And it is the second sentence with which I agree. Dead is dead, by accident or on purpose. It doesn't make a difference to the victims and their families.

And if you don't like that example, how about trade sanctions. They kill more people than most wars, and the people being killed are almost always (lets say, maybe 99%) innocent. Its not like the effects of sanctions aren't well known. No trade=no money=no food=no life. I don't know the exact figure of dead as a result of sanctions in Iraq alone, but its over 500,000. I'll find a link to a good article later on today and post it.

But thats so extreme. No one is proposing that, and I frankly don't see the corrolation. The only thing that is being asked y the critics here is that an actual crime be commited before an arrest is made. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

As for those criminals, the ones who "don't give a damn about other people's freedom or rights", well how about the US government for one. It has killed more people in the past 3 years than all the terrorist attacks of the previous decade. The US government only cares about the freedom and well-being of US citizens, everyone else can shut and get bombed.
[/B]

Prove it.

[Ace]

Originally posted by StratComm
Yes, this system is controversial.  What that means is that the system that actually gets put into place will be far less extreme.  It also sounds like this has some basis in that failed national security catalogue that the Pentagon (or the CIA, can't remember off hand) was planning to compile, but without that I can't see how efficient this system would be.  By due process of law and the constitutionality of such a system, it would have to be slanted towards letting people through rather than holding them.  I can see a lot of folks getting thrown into "yellow," which just takes the random out of random screenings, but "red" I would think would take something like being wanted for a serious crime or being on the terrorist watch list.  Note the wanted, being convicted and serving time for a serious crime would not set off the alarm.  

And we have once again successfully entered that grey realm of International politics, with the US isn't under a "law" thing.  A debate I'm not eager to see again and again.  First off, the US government does act in the interest of its own citizens first and foremost, as it should.  It does this on a national level, through social programs, laws, and security, and it does this internationally through diplomacy and war.  So the sanctions on Iraq, which is a favorite soft spot for anti-american sentiment, were not the best idea in the long run.  Then again, they were under UN mandate (yes, I know US political pressure led to the enactment of the sanctions but they were also approved, no matter how grudgingly, by at least the 8 other members of the Security Council).  And it's not like we could just lift the sanctions while Saddam was in power, as that can be seen as a concession and can lead to far worse problems.  (Watch 13 days, a similar example for those of you who remember the cold war)  Saddam did, after all, try to build a cannon capable of shelling the US as its explicit purpose, so no matter how much anyone argues otherwise he was rightly a percieved threat.  And for the record equating flying an airliner into a 100 story office building with the relatively few civilian casualties caused by a war is some very f****d up reasoning.

And too, while I'm on the subject, I grow VERY tired of the anti-American sentiments that are so often vocally expressed on this forum.  I would have you know that I am a civicly responsible citizen of the United States.  I believe that our government, despite its flaws, is one of the best in the world.  I support my nation's soldiers and I support my nation's leaders, even if I do not wholeheartedly agree with them on several major issues.  I don't support the US-led war in Iraq as it was sold to the world (while I do see it as ultimately being a good thing for the  Iraqi people, and it would have been even more so if the military brass had done better planning for post-war Iraq), but now that we are there I believe that we should stay there until the situation is stabalized.  Leaving now would be irresponsible both the to the lives lost in the war and to the citizens of both countries.  Take that as you will, those are my stances and they are not going anywere.

I am also a civically minded American citizen, the difference however is that I believe in doing onto others what you would have done to yourself.

Political pressure or not, the US has done actions which have directly and indirectly led to the terrorist attacks on the United States, and so is responsible.

The duty of a nation is to protect its people, and not to do it in a manner that will lead to a threat against the people by the decisions of a representing body.

A true "American" has no nationality, they operate on their own moral compass and are blind to religion, race, color, or creed. Many of the people on this forum who have been called "un-American" or "anti-American" are far more American then the sheep who hide behind nationality for comfort.

[Tiara]

Originally posted by Ace
Many of the people on this forum who have been called "un-American" or "anti-American" are far more American then the sheep who hide behind nationality for comfort.

Errrmm... I am not, and never will be part American. Not in my way of living nor in the way I think or am. I think just because we see things different we aren't in any way American or more American then Americans that hide behind nationality.

I am Dutch, and I think progressively Dutch. Period.

[Descenterace]

Thoughts for the day:

People only have the rights given to them by other people.

In fact, on the topic of animal rights, animals only have the rights given to them by people.

Rights are a human thing, and a product of civilisation.  Nature doesn't give a damn about 'fair'.  But we have to, or we wouldn't be human.

[Ace]

Originally posted by Tiara

Errrmm... I am not, and never will be part American. Not in my way of living nor in the way I think or am. I think just because we see things different we aren't in any way American or more American then Americans that hide behind nationality.

I am Dutch, and I think progressively Dutch. Period.

Thanks for taking the punch out of my firey statement designed to make some of the folks here feel guilty

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Descenterace
Thoughts for the day:

People only have the rights given to them by other people.

In fact, on the topic of animal rights, animals only have the rights given to them by people.

Rights are a human thing, and a product of civilisation.  Nature doesn't give a damn about 'fair'.  But we have to, or we wouldn't be human.

Bingo. Bleh, its too early. I'll post something more later on..

[Agent]

Originally posted by CP5670


eh...there is oxygen inside too. My life at the moment consists of solving math problems, playing computer games and building lego stuff, all of which can be best done at home. I don't see the rest of the world as often, but all the interesting things in the world for me are at home anyway.
I have got math!

I appologize for saying this, but YOu are crazy...Mr 5670
You remind me of a friend of myne. He's just crazy about Maths and stuff and doesn't go out on fresh air too often. Scarey, Math people are.
What you trying to do? Make a program and enslave the entire human race into it?

[Tiara]

Originally posted by Agent
Make a program and enslave the entire human race into it?

DON'T give him any ideas.

[Unknown Target]

Seriously, with CP, you just never know

*dee-do-dee-do-dee-do*

[kasperl]

from article:
Most people will be coded green and sail through. But up to 8 percent of passengers who board the nation's 26,000 daily flights will be coded "yellow" and will undergo additional screening at the checkpoint, according to people familiar with the program. An estimated 1 to 2 percent will be labeled "red" and will be prohibited from boarding. These passengers also will face police questioning and may be arrested.

let's just take the average filling of a plane to 200, and see howmany people are involved here.

8 percent, is 16 people coded yellow, nothing bad here yet, exceot that your probably delayed, and/or have to go throuigh some lengthy stuff.

but, up to 4, or at least 1, would be thrown into a cell, have to wait for the cops, and then be questioned like a criminal.

now, if you say that 1 out of 200 people is a criminal, and then not just someone who once stole a bread, or ripped a cd,  something is wrong.

[Gloriano]

Passengers will be assigned a color code -- green, yellow or red -- based in part on their city of departure, destination, traveling companions and

 oh dear God!!!! no!!!!

[Unknown Target]

Who else here is gonna be island-hopping their flights, using local and small airline business aircraft from now on?

[Agent]

Originally posted by Tiara


DON'T give him any ideas.

What? He can't do that now can he? Sheez people, reality check.

[Unknown Target]

With CP, you never know...

[IceFire]

I'm with Ace, police states don't come into being overnight.  It takes time and there are many many times along the way where it could have been stopped.

As it goes right now, the Terrorists, in one attack have already damaged the entire American value of liberty and we have nobody to thank but Americans for doing that.  Sure I'm from Canada but we're neighbors and I like to vacation there and its getting harder and harder to even want to cross the border.  Even so, the two countries share many values (and disagree on others) and nobody wants to see America devolve into what its set out to accomplish in the rest of the world.

Nobody should take the Brittany Spears approach and suggest that we should all just go along with what the president says because he's the president and were not.  Democracy doesn't work that way.  We argue, debate, reach consensus or go back to the drawing table.  Its not perfect...but I see too many things bypassing regular channels in the interests of national security.

Have the terrorists already won?  I sure hope not...