Jump to content
Science Forums

No legacy is so rich as honesty


InfiniteNow
 Share

Recommended Posts

Are you aware that the 'parliament' is comprised of all of the MP's elected to the place, whether it be the Australian House of Representatives, the British House of Commons or the US Congress. The government consists of a majority of the MP's in the parliament and sets the agenda for the house. When a law is brought into being it is passed by the approval of the house (not the government) and then goes onto the Senate (The Lords for the UK) and the Head of state for final approval.

So you're saying that while a parliamentary system allows idiotic right wingers like John Howard to single-handedly hijack foreign policy and delve into supporting the American Imperialist Hegemony against the wishes of the of virtually all Australians, whereas the American Presidential system conclusively implies that Every American fully, completely and without qualification supports whatever actions are taken by any part of the Government?

 

Sure. Why not. Sounds logical to me! :hyper:

 

Or were you trying to make some other point?

I was referring to the considerable support given by US citizens to the IRA during their battle for independence in the 1920's. As the British are major US allies in the war against terror, and the IRA has only recently been decomissioned (and it's military wing is still outlawed), surely this illustrates my point very clearly.
That's "US citizens". Are you sure you don't want to qualify that? Maybe it was the Jews! Oh and you know the Chinese immigrants in the seventies were *really* strong supporters of the IRA, but contrary to the lies spread by the US government, this was the third and fourth generation citizens and not the immigrant Tong members who made so much money in international arms markets: those stories are just evil lies.
p.s. Did you know that after the last civilian bombing by an IRA splinter group, many of the relatives of the original IRA soldiers from the 1920's added "OLD IRA' onto their headstones, at least that's what my Irish relatives tell me.
Ah, and they're probably Orange too: this is a well known slur against Catholics who *never* supported any sort of action against civilians.

 

Happiness is the perpetual possession of being well deceived, :clock:

Buffy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you understand what the meaning of the word "terrorism" is. A terrorist is a person who attacks a non-military target BECAUSE it's a non-military target.

 

While I can think of several instances of non-military targets being attacked by the "good guys" it's never been that the US (or any other "good guy") has attacked civilians simply because they're civilians. We've attacked them on accident, as a by product of attacking something else, and several times through sheer idiocy. But even at our most brain-dead it wasn't like we pointed at the target and said - "There's a group of (non-military) people who really don't have anything to do with this, and will be really surprised when bombs start falling on them. Scramble!"

 

TFS

 

In early August, 1945, the United States government decided to drop atomic bombs in the middle of two Japanese cities, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. This by no means was an accident, and it is a stretch to consider the centers of these cities as military targets. It was justified as a means to end the war with Japan, even though they had virtually lost the war already.

 

There were many opposed to the selection of the targets, including scientific advisers who had been involved in the development of these nuclear devices, who felt that a big enough impression would be made by dropping them off the coast or on less populated areas. It was decided that in order to produce a dramatic enough result, those who were not involved would have to be sacrificed.

 

It worked.

 

Collateral Damage - when you kill people you actually TRIED not to kill - or killed a bunch of unrelated people as an unavoidable side effect of a legitimate military strike.

 

Indiscriminate Killing - when you really don't care who you kill - but you've got a legitimate reason for killing somebody nearby. I think this is Dresden. It's not like you set out AIMING for civilians, you just didn't try to NOT shoot them.

 

Terrorism - when you purposely try to kill someone who is not involved in a military way with your objective AND when their lack of involvement is the reason they became a target in the first place.

 

Which of your definitions above do you think most accurately describes the act of atom bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

 

 

(Sorry INow. I know this seems to be perpetuating off topic discussion. But it does involve a legacy of honesty.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Reason, it's a bit off topic and that's part of the reason I tried to sort things out between Faith and Laurie. No use, I guess.

 

I was referring to the considerable support given by US citizens to the IRA during their battle for independence in the 1920's. As the British are major US allies in the war against terror, and the IRA has only recently been decomissioned (and it's military wing is still outlawed), surely this illustrates my point very clearly.
I had imagined you were referring to this when you mentioned the Ulster case, but it doesn't make your point about the American revolution more accurate than it was. Quit being pointless.

 

The government consists of a majority of the MP's in the parliament and sets the agenda for the house.
But not in the US system. In the US the executive has a slightly weightier share of the three powers than in other countries, look how it's been showing recently and despite Bush not having support of the majority in Congress. Quit being pointless.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Buffy,

 

So you're saying that while a parliamentary system allows idiotic right wingers like John Howard to single-handedly hijack foreign policy and delve into supporting the American Imperialist Hegemony against the wishes of the of virtually all Australians, whereas the American Presidential system conclusively implies that Every American fully, completely and without qualification supports whatever actions are taken by any part of the Government?

 

No, I am saying that in a democracy the collective decision made by a house of parliament is what counts, regardless of what the people think on the matter. BTW Buffy, Socratic irony only works if the person playing dumb doesn't agree with the person they are playing dumb with.

 

Or were you trying to make some other point?That's "US citizens". Are you sure you don't want to qualify that? Maybe it was the Jews! Oh and you know the Chinese immigrants in the seventies were *really* strong supporters of the IRA, but contrary to the lies spread by the US government, this was the third and fourth generation citizens and not the immigrant Tong members who made so much money in international arms markets: those stories are just evil lies.

 

No I am not making the racist and bigoted points you express, Buffy. I'll qualify it as just 'stupid people' who have lost the plot big time.

 

Ah, and they're probably Orange too: this is a well known slur against Catholics who *never* supported any sort of action against civilians.

 

You obviously don't know anything about Ireland either Buffy, or you would realise that most of the animosity was between the Irish Catholics and the English and Scottish protestants. Between 1845 and 1849 between one and 2 million Irish people starved to death because the potato crop failed.

 

If you want to get 'Swiftian' then you might realise that Dean (Jonathon) Swift was one of the great protestant supporters of the rights of Irish catholics during their hardest times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Q,

 

I had imagined you were referring to this when you mentioned the Ulster case, but it doesn't make your point about the American revolution more accurate than it was. Quit being pointless.

 

I never actually referenced the American revolution and made no point about it, my references were made about the Irish revolution and how things change with regards to recognising terrorists one minute and then recognising them as allies the next and Vs Vs.

 

But not in the US system. In the US the executive has a slightly weightier share of the three powers than in other countries, look how it's been showing recently and despite Bush not having support of the majority in Congress. Quit being pointless.

 

So If Congress doesn't approve a piece of legislation at the first step, can GWB implement it? You describe a dictatorship not a democracy (and that is a big point, if you are being honest).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What? They've always kept track of the number of people they kill on accident. Granted, they sometimes look like they can't count very well...

 

TFS

 

Hi TFS,

 

I've just googled this site Iraq Body Count which quotes General tommy Franks.

 

I also found this very recent article in the Baltimore Sun U.S. must face huge death toll of Iraqi civilians -- baltimoresun.com

 

Not wanting to think about civilian deaths in Iraq has become almost universal. But ignorance of the Iraqi death toll is no longer an option.

 

An Associated Press poll in February found that the average American believed about 9,900 Iraqis had been killed since the end of major combat operations in 2003. Recent evidence suggests that things in Iraq may be 100 times worse than Americans realize.

 

News report tallies suggest that about 75,000 Iraqis have died since the U.S.-led invasion. But a study of 13 war-affected countries presented at a recent Harvard conference found that more than 80 percent of violent deaths in conflicts go unreported by the press and governments.

 

Do you have a link to the US military figures you refer to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Laurie, if you can't take a bit of sarcasm then, instead of complaining and saying "I didn't say that", just quit making insinuations and being troublesome and pointless.

Quærendo invenietis...

 

I never actually referenced the American revolution and made no point about it, my references were made about the Irish revolution and how things change with regards to recognising terrorists one minute and then recognising them as allies the next and Vs Vs.
Well then who did you mean by "you" and "your own" when you said:
In this context your own winners of the war of independance are 'terrorists'.

 

All I am saying is that when you attribute to your own what you deny to others in the exact same situations as yourself, you behave ethnocentrically and do your country a disservice, while the world looks on in bewilderment.

Although this followed your example about the IRA it didn't appear directly referred to it, since you were replying to Buffy who is in California and has never described herself as Irish (and apparently doesn't know anything about Ireland either:rolleyes:). I know they struck up much sympathy and even help from North America, especially with descendants of Irish, but this did not make your reference clear enough and you could have told Faith a bit sooner instead of yet more pointless squabbling over victims of US wars. And how does the potato famine prove your point anyway?

 

So If Congress doesn't approve a piece of legislation at the first step, can GWB implement it? You describe a dictatorship not a democracy (and that is a big point, if you are being honest).
I describe a what? And you even talk about honesty and you've complained about "not having said that" when you were looking for trouble. You've been presuming to teach people what a democracy is and isn't, without getting the various forms of it straight.

 

I described a democratic republic which, compared to other current large ones, is structured differently and in which the so-called checks and balances between the three powers of state are quite different. Now the real point is that this system is slightly prone to being tweaked, somewhat like what happened elsewhere between the two world wars, but fortunately today's world wide web differs from the world of back then plus it has those examples to learn from. People (including Americans) have been raising the alert, I've been relieved to see the scheme fail; those behind the scenes in Dee Cee who tried to exploit 911 haven't yet got away with it.

 

Now if you're not looking for trouble, try to be clear and to handle misunderstandings in a better way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Q,

 

Laurie, if you can't take a bit of sarcasm then, instead of complaining and saying "I didn't say that", just quit making insinuations and being troublesome and pointless.

Quærendo invenietis...

 

If people say things about you enough times, and you don't respond, then you must agree with them. I don't.

 

I know they struck up much sympathy and even help from North America, especially with descendants of Irish, but this did not make your reference clear enough and you could have told Faith a bit sooner instead of yet more pointless squabbling over victims of US wars. And how does the potato famine prove your point anyway?

 

As the US has just as considerable proportion of its population who are of Irish descent as Australia, understanding what created the Irish diaspora would be a good way of understanding and countering 'terrorism' (and for that matter the ongoing school attacks in the US).

 

Q, terrorism is relative and not absolute! You cannot say 'us and them' because, over time, us and them change leaving you in a political quantum superposition.

 

I described a democratic republic which, compared to other current large ones, is structured differently and in which the so-called checks and balances between the three powers of state are quite different. Now the real point is that this system is slightly prone to being tweaked, somewhat like what happened elsewhere between the two world wars, but fortunately today's world wide web differs from the world of back then plus it has those examples to learn from. People (including Americans) have been raising the alert, I've been relieved to see the scheme fail; those behind the scenes in Dee Cee who tried to exploit 911 haven't yet got away with it.

 

Read my post titled 'Code Red for the Australian Constitution' on this page

http://hypography.com/forums/social-sciences/11764-australia-5.html

and tell me what is wrong with comparing democracies as they were and where they are now, while trying to figure out how they went wrong?

 

Now if you're not looking for trouble, try to be clear and to handle misunderstandings in a better way.

 

That goes both ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If people say things about you enough times, and you don't respond, then you must agree with them. I don't.
This does not justify your complaint against what you could have avoided by being less ambiguous; if you disagree with someone then reply in a suitable manner. You aren't showing bona fide about your attitude and behaviour. Watch your step.

 

As the US has just as considerable proportion of its population who are of Irish descent as Australia, understanding what created the Irish diaspora would be a good way of understanding and countering 'terrorism' (and for that matter the ongoing school attacks in the US).
I'm aware of the analogy, but it doesn't what you replied to and what makes you think you must teach me? You could have said this before getting into trouble with people here.

 

Q, terrorism is relative and not absolute! You cannot say 'us and them' because, over time, us and them change leaving you in a political quantum superposition.
Thanks for such a valuable lesson but I hadn't fallen into such fallacy, I had even discussed the ambiguities of the term. It does not mean that terrorism is justified. I don't justify it any more than what led people to enact it, which in many cases is only an excuse upheld by dudes who aren't doing for the victims of those causes.

 

Read my post titled 'Code Red for the Australian Constitution' on this page
Don't tell me what to do, and it doesn't even address the point. Set up your own forum and you can choose your staff and decide everything about it. Here you are an ordinary member and repeatedly getting yourself into trouble. We can decide about your privileges, here in this forum.

 

That goes both ways.
Yeah, :oh_really: I was being ambiguous and looking for trouble, wasn't I?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to take a moment to thank both Qfwfq and LaurieAG for the roles they've played in this thread. Before I opened it, they both graciously agreed to illustrate the point of the OP by showing it's effect in the microcosm which is Hypography, showing the issue as it presents among individuals instead of whole governments. Well played. :oh_really:

 

JK...

 

 

Is it just me, or is the US as a whole displaying more of the negative totalitarian principles which were held by the nations against whom we fought during the middle of the twentieth century?

 

Those who fought in World War II are nearly all gone, and the ideals for which they perished seem to be losing traction in our society. Mindsets are polarized, individuals are type-caste, and we sling mud at one another instead of engaging in intellectual explorations for mutual advancement.

 

The young people of Earth must pick up their torches and light the way toward a future which will bring us together and protect those that cannot protect themselves.

 

This passionate pursuit must be spread as if contagious. We must each become the seed crystal of positive change. We must rekindle our connection with nature and collaborate for the collective well-being of existence.

 

Pick a topic, any subject, all contexts. We can and must do better. Let go of fear and embrace hope. Compassion is more powerful than hatred, and should be nourished.

 

We are not all the same, but we are all together. It’s time for the youth of our planet to unite, and to speak out with the voice of our fallen grandfathers. It’s our turn to earn the world for which they gave their lives, and change begins within.

 

So, I ask again. Is it just me?

 

 

Our grandparents sacrificed for certain very specific ideals. I find it important that we don't let them go so easily. :cup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our grandparents sacrificed for certain very specific ideals. I find it important that we don't let them go so easily. :oh_really:

I would like to know what the specific ideals were that our grandparents sacrificed for. Only then can we discuss how or if those ideals are still being honored. We need to establish common ground if we are going to make any progress. All we are doing here is typing messages, if we cannot establish common ground with such little consequence, then how can we expect movement toward common ground when the stakes of the decisions are real?

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The title of this discussion is "no legacy so rich as honesty". There is truth to that. The main problem with modern culture, compared to the older generations, is the influence of the modern entertainment industries, such as, music, media, movies, etc.. This influence is more about illusion and fantasy, not honesty. The older generation did not have the same level of exposure. One spent more time in reality instead of fantasy. The movies of the day did not have the modrn special affects to make the fantasy look real. So people knew it was only a movie.

 

Back in the olden days, the object of news people was to present the facts and then editorialize. Now one will editorialize first using selective facts. This is more entertaining, but it is also more deceptive. This allows one to cater to the fantasy of those who want something or anything to be true.

 

Let me give an example. The mainstream media will usually give the death tolls of American soldiers in Iraq. This is truthful data. But it is not the whole truth, and does not allow one to have an objective perspective. In sports, the box scores usually show the scores for both teams, so one can get a objective sense of the game. For example, if the Red Sox and Indians played a game, and I reported the score as Indians 4, and then I show the best plays of the Indians and a few errors by the Red Sox, one would assume that the Indians won the game. The final score could be Red Sox 6 Indian 4, but if we leave out the Red Sox 6, part of the data, one can manipulate people to believe the opposite is true. Those who should be the models of honesty for culture, such as the media, are being less than honest, setting a poor example.

 

This generation appears to have lost their sense of perspective, because influential people who offer opinions will tend to stack the data. If this data and analysis was honest and truthful, the reaction would be natural. In the baseball example, if one was an Indian fan, after the media twisted the sense of perspective, one would go around full of joy their team won, when in reality, they lost. It is up to them to do their own research and check the source. But if a fan wanted the Indians to win, they may not want to hear the truth just yet, since their are enjoying the fantasy. They may prefer read or listen to only accounts that keep the fantasy alive.

 

If we do the Iraq War box scores, allies versus the terrorists, and compare all the categories like deaths, wounded, POW's, civilian causalities, etc., one would see the allies are winning in all the categories. One will not see the data presented this way by the media. It would be harder to decieve. If they said we are losing, anyone with half a brain would see a problem. Next, if we compare these allie numbers to any of the dozens of battles in WWII, and these numbers look like only one of the battled of that war. It is not good to have war, but Iraq is light weight by historical standards. Yet many people have been manipulated to believe this is the WWIII, by the wishful fantasies created entertaining politians and media.

 

Honesty has to begin with a willingness to use all the data. If one is content with selective data, they can never be honest, by default. If one has an agenda, total honesty will take the wind out of your sails. Less than honesty is far more affective for maintaining a level of fantasy excitement. If all the data is presented, the number of possible conclusions converges. With selective data the number of possible conclusions diverge. The older generations were more into honesty, so convergence was higher. They did have racial dishonesty, but this was addresed with honesty creating further convergence. After that cultural divergence appeared, until we now have honesty of emotion, using less than the full data set.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honesty has to begin with a willingness to use all the data. If one is content with selective data, they can never be honest, by default. If one has an agenda, total honesty will take the wind out of your sails. Less than honesty is far more affective for maintaining a level of fantasy excitement. If all the data is presented, the number of possible conclusions converges. With selective data the number of possible conclusions diverge. The older generations were more into honesty, so convergence was higher. They did have racial dishonesty, but this was addresed with honesty creating further convergence. After that cultural divergence appeared, until we now have honesty of emotion, using less than the full data set.

 

Hear Hear HydrogenBond,

 

The exact same goes for good science as well as good politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...