Notice that I use a ton of qualifiers (In my opinion, to me, for my money, I reason, as far as I can see) in my posts. Check the last one and count. I thought it was quite obvious that when I say "In my opinion", whatever follows is just that - my opinion, but apparently not quite obvious enough.
I may not agree with people's opinions, and may not understand how they could possibly reach such a conclusion, but I respect their right to have it. And here's a magic phrase: as long as their opinions don't **** with someone else's life.
now, lets proceed:
Originally posted by mikhael
There are an infinite number of gradations between "rape the third world!" and "do your utmost to uplift the poor benighted souls of the third world".
In not understanding (or, really, ACCEPTING) this, you fail, Rictor.
No, there are two three options: help, nothing, hurt. There are however shades of grey for the first and last. Buying clothes at the GAP does not hurt the Third World as much as picking up a gun and killing union leaders. Similarly, what I am doing now, debating on an online forum, does not help as much as donatng a billion dollars to get revatilize Nigeria's economy.
I accept it and understand it, because it is human nature. Also, I support it, because I personally do not want to live in a world of extremes.
Originally posted by mikhael
For most human beings, conclusions are based on a plurality of ideas and facts and beliefs. Ideas, facts and beliefs that apply to ONE situation are not always considered when making decisions on OTHER (possibly related) situations. All human decision making is purely, compltely, and utterly situational.
Situational to the exclusion of logic? Is it wrong to ask for some degree if rational though and consistancy? This is just to vague to respond to in general, there are two perfectly good examples (corporations and Third World) to work with, so...
Originally posted by mikhael
I do call Kazan, Liberator and ionia's views extremist. However, their views are at least in touch with reality. Yours, however, are not. Consider: you espouse the idea that people should feel no loyalty to their nation because their birth as a citizen of that nation was random circumstance. While you are correct about your STATEMENT ("Birth into any given nation is a random circumstance."), your PREDICATE ("you should feel no loyalty to your nation.") does not logically follow. It is, truly, non sequitr. In the realm of logic, your implication is false. You set up false dilemmas ("Either you believe corporations are evil, or you're helping the corporations rape the world"), wherein two logically disconnected propositions are joined in an XOR relationship. This sort of logic may serve to further your arguments, since it is trivial to find a counterexample (I neither believe corporations are evil, nor am I helping them rape the world).
In my mind, merit has to be earned. My mom have birth to me, raised me, spent a huge amount of time and energy protecting me, feeding me and so on. She deserves greater protection by me than a stranger.
However, I do not feel that my countrymen have earned my respect or deserve my protection. Canadians or Serbs, in general, have done nothing to better my life. I would not fight for Serbia, despite it being my place of birth, if I were to disagree with what is being fought for.
Similarly, I doubt that the American people have done anything to earn your respect or support. Individuals, perhaps. And you may even like the history and the values of the people who founded the country. But why does a New Yorker who you have never met nor will ever meet deserve your protection, any more than a Turk who you have never met nor will ever meet?
I don't believe that the randomness of your birthplace and the support and protection for that place are disconnected ideas. Random people or random places do not deserve anythng from me, because they have not earned it.
Well, they deserve not to be harmed by me, but they do not deserve anything beyond that.
Originally posted by mikhael
Even when your logic is flawless, it, unfortunately, ignores human factors. In an idealized world, human factors would be perfectly logical. In the real world, however, they are not. People are going to feel loyalty to their country. Its a basic extension of the herd instinct.
I'll say it again, progress. Herd mentality has killed more people in history than just about anything, and yet you still cling to it. I see plently of cons, but no pros.
It serves no purpose. I could live with it if it was just useless, but its not just that. Its also, as I said, the cause of great suffering.
I don't pretend that the world is going to change overnight becuase of my whims. But I see nothing wrong in trying to share my views on this subject, with the posibility of getting through to someone, to the people who I come into contact with.
Originally posted by mikhael
Rictor, you must simply accept that what you see as 'logical' is not necessarily 'logical' to anyone else. I'm sure, like you, Liberator believes he's being perfectly logical when he espouses both fundamental Christian beliefs AND a willingness to invade a sovereign nation. I see this as a logical contradiction. Your "logic" is no more logical than anyone elses. The same, of course, can be said about your notion of "ethics".
Ethics is a different matter. Would you say that the majority of the people who populate this rock share the same basic ideas of ethics? If so, I am willing to take that and call it "Human Ethics, Do Not **** With"
As for logic, its quite obvious that people logic is different than my own. For the same of discussion, I would love it if people could do a simple breakdown like I did in my previous post, cause that makes it a hell of a lot easier than trying to read their mind and try to guess at what their logic entails. I'll try to do it more from now on, perhaps it makes life a little easier. That way, you can either call into question the logic or the assumptions, instead of stabbing in the dark.
Sure, I won't be able to rant as much, but I'm getting damn tired of writing these long ass posts anyways.
Originally posted by mikhael
I think I'm going to avoid any such discussions with you in the future. You'll always claim the moral, ethical and logical high ground, and then defend it with bizarre arguments that are inconsistent, or make no logical sense (I make absolutely no claim as to the consistency or logical defensibility of my own arguments). In the end, its simply not worth it.
Your choice. I find that most discussions come down to something like this if they go on long enough, which is really the meat of the matter. Everyone needs to fire off the intial volley of "you suck, asshole" before things start to settle down and something resembling debate gets underway.
