Most Americans are hot-blood...
-
Let it, from this day forward, be known that if you invite an enemy of the US, the basterd who planned the 9-11 attacks and killed 3,000 people of all nations, to dinner... It might be your last. Anyone who harbors or gives quarter to the enemy of the USA is the enemy of the USA. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-01-15-pakistan-attack\_x.htm If you kill 3,000 people in New York your damm straight Americans get hot blooded. These were not innocent people. They were aiding the enemy so don't feel sorry for them. If in 1941 we had a chance to blow up Hitler at a dinner party with a bunch of Nazi's generals would you have felt sorry for them? Same thing in this situation. Moral of the story is don't invite a marked man to dinner. Sorry, I know this should be in the Soapbox but it's not so I responded here. E=mc2 -> BOOM
Well that certainly adds some missing details to the subject now doesn't it?
Some assembly required. Code-frog System Architects, Inc.
-
Well that certainly adds some missing details to the subject now doesn't it?
Some assembly required. Code-frog System Architects, Inc.
To speak for all americans, as "Albert Einstein" does, only helps ppp001 and his troupe to become even more convinced that there are no individual human beings living in the US and, rather, that the country is populated with single minded robots acting in unison. Aside from being utterly and profundly mistaken, such generalizations are the wet dreams of bigots: "There is but one enemy, they all (and the people they dine with, apparently)".
-
To speak for all americans, as "Albert Einstein" does, only helps ppp001 and his troupe to become even more convinced that there are no individual human beings living in the US and, rather, that the country is populated with single minded robots acting in unison. Aside from being utterly and profundly mistaken, such generalizations are the wet dreams of bigots: "There is but one enemy, they all (and the people they dine with, apparently)".
Ummm...
I was just referring to the link. I do so love the generalization though. Nice one.
Some assembly required. Code-frog System Architects, Inc.
-
Ummm...
I was just referring to the link. I do so love the generalization though. Nice one.
Some assembly required. Code-frog System Architects, Inc.
-
To speak for all americans, as "Albert Einstein" does, only helps ppp001 and his troupe to become even more convinced that there are no individual human beings living in the US and, rather, that the country is populated with single minded robots acting in unison. Aside from being utterly and profundly mistaken, such generalizations are the wet dreams of bigots: "There is but one enemy, they all (and the people they dine with, apparently)".
Sorry for the generalization. Of course I was speaking for my self. There are the bleeding heart type of Americans who would not agree with me. There are also those who treat terrorism as a criminal act and not an act of war. In the US and in the case of a criminal act you are not assumed to also be guilty even if you hang out with people who turn out to be. However in the case of an act of war that is not the case (lot's of rules go our the window as a matter of law when we talk war vs crime so don't blame me) As for Albert, he was a pacifist so I am sure he would not approve of my comments. He always regretted that E=mc2 was used to create the atomic bomb (see my sig.). I admire him not for his politics but for his thoughts and creativity. I do think he would think the latter was more important anyway. I think that ppp001 should know that there is more diversity of thought in the US then perhaps anywhere in the world simply because we live in a free country, where people are free to express thier thoughts. Unlike Iran, Iraq (to a degree even today), Syria and other places (mostly in the middle east). E=mc2 -> BOOM
-
Now I see the link. The hatemonger's motto did come out round, yes,... and poignantly distressing as well.
I don't know that I'm ready to call anybody a hate monger. None of this is simple at all. Do I think killing 17 is okay trying to get the 1? Frankly we don't have enough information about the 17. Do I think the {insert several rude names here} who planned 911 and carried it out should be found at all costs? That's a tough one to. Someone (him) hates the United States at such a deep level it's difficult to fathom. Any dead American to them is a job well done (or so it would seem). Does that justify hate back towards them? I'm not one to say yes or know. I do know that as a result of lashbacks here in the U.S. of Americans towards muslims there are now muslims going after terrorists in their own ways because they want to live here in peace and terrorism is making that hard for them. The result is desirable do I agree with the means? Probably not. I don't think it's fair to harass muslims here for what terrorists are doing. Honestly I think that if it's a problem of that magnitude we shouldn't be over there going after them we should just not allow *any* of them in to the U.S. (that's not hate nor is it violent). If we kick them all out carrying out terrorists acts on our soil is more difficult. It will also make them fix the problem in their own country. "If you want to the come to the U.S. then make sure your buddies back home don't ruin your stay." If they want to come here bad enough let them dump their own time, money, blood and energy into getting here.
Anyway, calling someone a hate monger seems a bit like becoming what you beheld and being content you've done right. I don't see any easy solution to this. I don't think there's a right side and a wrong side to stand on. I believe this is a very tough issue and solutions, effective solutions are going to be very hard to come by. Do I think what the United States is doing now to try and fix the problem will work? In a word, NOPE. Do I have any better ideas? In a word, NOPE.
None of this is simple or easy and name-calling at any level isn't going to help matters. It will just build anger (which is ironic) and anger is not a solution at all. I think everyone, no matter how strongly they may feel needs to step back and calm down. If a solution is to be found it will be found from calm people who reason the problem out with well collected thoughts and actions. Anger is neither well collected or thoughtful it's not too different from 17 people being dead. We need to be careful that we don't become hypocritical in our posturing
-
Sorry for the generalization. Of course I was speaking for my self. There are the bleeding heart type of Americans who would not agree with me. There are also those who treat terrorism as a criminal act and not an act of war. In the US and in the case of a criminal act you are not assumed to also be guilty even if you hang out with people who turn out to be. However in the case of an act of war that is not the case (lot's of rules go our the window as a matter of law when we talk war vs crime so don't blame me) As for Albert, he was a pacifist so I am sure he would not approve of my comments. He always regretted that E=mc2 was used to create the atomic bomb (see my sig.). I admire him not for his politics but for his thoughts and creativity. I do think he would think the latter was more important anyway. I think that ppp001 should know that there is more diversity of thought in the US then perhaps anywhere in the world simply because we live in a free country, where people are free to express thier thoughts. Unlike Iran, Iraq (to a degree even today), Syria and other places (mostly in the middle east). E=mc2 -> BOOM
Albert Einstein. wrote:
Sorry for the generalization. Of course I was speaking for my self.
Yes, you were. Keeping it in mind should help you concoct more balanced opinions. For instance, you might have avoided saying exactly the same as ppp001 while thinking you were saying the opposite.
Albert Einstein. wrote:
There are the bleeding heart type of Americans who would not agree with me.
Not only bleeding heart types. And since you now are looking for someone else's head to knock, I'll tell you that adults also disagree with you.
Albert Einstein. wrote:
I think that ppp001 should know that there is more diversity of thought in the US then perhaps anywhere in the world simply because we live in a free country, where people are free to express thier thoughts.
You should travel overseas more. And since you have almost produced the absurdly common "America is the only country in the world that... (fill in with your most preposterous delusion)" and will add that nothing makes me laugh the most as an american, than the infantile cliche "America is the only country in the world where any one can become president". As if.
-
Now I see the link. The hatemonger's motto did come out round, yes,... and poignantly distressing as well.
If I am a hatemonger for wanting to blow up they guy who killed 3,000 people then I guess I'm a hatemonger. If I'm a hatemonger for not caring if we blew up 17 people who support call him friend and help him out in his quest to kill Americans, then I'm a hatemonger. But remember, he hated us first. E=mc2 -> BOOM
-
I don't know that I'm ready to call anybody a hate monger. None of this is simple at all. Do I think killing 17 is okay trying to get the 1? Frankly we don't have enough information about the 17. Do I think the {insert several rude names here} who planned 911 and carried it out should be found at all costs? That's a tough one to. Someone (him) hates the United States at such a deep level it's difficult to fathom. Any dead American to them is a job well done (or so it would seem). Does that justify hate back towards them? I'm not one to say yes or know. I do know that as a result of lashbacks here in the U.S. of Americans towards muslims there are now muslims going after terrorists in their own ways because they want to live here in peace and terrorism is making that hard for them. The result is desirable do I agree with the means? Probably not. I don't think it's fair to harass muslims here for what terrorists are doing. Honestly I think that if it's a problem of that magnitude we shouldn't be over there going after them we should just not allow *any* of them in to the U.S. (that's not hate nor is it violent). If we kick them all out carrying out terrorists acts on our soil is more difficult. It will also make them fix the problem in their own country. "If you want to the come to the U.S. then make sure your buddies back home don't ruin your stay." If they want to come here bad enough let them dump their own time, money, blood and energy into getting here.
Anyway, calling someone a hate monger seems a bit like becoming what you beheld and being content you've done right. I don't see any easy solution to this. I don't think there's a right side and a wrong side to stand on. I believe this is a very tough issue and solutions, effective solutions are going to be very hard to come by. Do I think what the United States is doing now to try and fix the problem will work? In a word, NOPE. Do I have any better ideas? In a word, NOPE.
None of this is simple or easy and name-calling at any level isn't going to help matters. It will just build anger (which is ironic) and anger is not a solution at all. I think everyone, no matter how strongly they may feel needs to step back and calm down. If a solution is to be found it will be found from calm people who reason the problem out with well collected thoughts and actions. Anger is neither well collected or thoughtful it's not too different from 17 people being dead. We need to be careful that we don't become hypocritical in our posturing
Interesting reflexion, but problematic. For example,
code-frog wrote:
Any dead American to them is a job well done (or so it would seem). Does that justify hate back towards them?
The saying is actually ours and has been used to refer to some of our fellow citizens at different times throughout our history. Does it justfy their hatred towards the rest of us? As I said, problematic. "Just" response is a subjective value and retaliation can go to the end of time. It sure started at the beginning of time.
code-frog wrote:
Anyway, calling someone a hate monger seems a bit like becoming what you beheld and being content you've done right.
Actually, this is not the case. Your difficulty in deciding what to think, morally speaking, is very common and usually originates in the confusion between elaborating a description of a situation and arriving at a moral evaluation of said situation. I use "hatemongering"/"bigotry" descriptively. In particular, I am addressing the cognitive tendency to categorize, to generalize, to stereotype. I am addressing the danger associated with the dehumanizing of each single person as they are deprived of individuality by being crunched into purely conceptual entities, that is, into labelled groups. For example, as an unique individual, you may be a bachelor, democrat, left-handed; you may love your mother, cheesecake, and baseball; you may prefer mexican food and honda motorcycles; you may have a wonderful sense of humor. As a "man" (labelled by a feminist bigot) you are violent, dense, coarse, and a rapist waiting to explode. She feels entitled to speak for 3 billion human beings, and (check this out) to criminalize another 3 billion human beings. At the drop of a hat. As if there were nothing strange about it. As if it were the most normal thing in the world. In short, purely conceptual entities take any desired characteristic and in the hands of bigots can prove deadly. You say I anger them, I say they are angry already. These are people going through difficult times in their lives, often times with serious psychological problems and falling pray to political adventures. The moment that you ask a bigot to stop generalizing, they are forced to shut up. You are helping them break the circular thinking in their heads. It is the kryptonite of bigots. You may not succeed but you will make your life and that of those
-
If I am a hatemonger for wanting to blow up they guy who killed 3,000 people then I guess I'm a hatemonger. If I'm a hatemonger for not caring if we blew up 17 people who support call him friend and help him out in his quest to kill Americans, then I'm a hatemonger. But remember, he hated us first. E=mc2 -> BOOM
-
Interesting reflexion, but problematic. For example,
code-frog wrote:
Any dead American to them is a job well done (or so it would seem). Does that justify hate back towards them?
The saying is actually ours and has been used to refer to some of our fellow citizens at different times throughout our history. Does it justfy their hatred towards the rest of us? As I said, problematic. "Just" response is a subjective value and retaliation can go to the end of time. It sure started at the beginning of time.
code-frog wrote:
Anyway, calling someone a hate monger seems a bit like becoming what you beheld and being content you've done right.
Actually, this is not the case. Your difficulty in deciding what to think, morally speaking, is very common and usually originates in the confusion between elaborating a description of a situation and arriving at a moral evaluation of said situation. I use "hatemongering"/"bigotry" descriptively. In particular, I am addressing the cognitive tendency to categorize, to generalize, to stereotype. I am addressing the danger associated with the dehumanizing of each single person as they are deprived of individuality by being crunched into purely conceptual entities, that is, into labelled groups. For example, as an unique individual, you may be a bachelor, democrat, left-handed; you may love your mother, cheesecake, and baseball; you may prefer mexican food and honda motorcycles; you may have a wonderful sense of humor. As a "man" (labelled by a feminist bigot) you are violent, dense, coarse, and a rapist waiting to explode. She feels entitled to speak for 3 billion human beings, and (check this out) to criminalize another 3 billion human beings. At the drop of a hat. As if there were nothing strange about it. As if it were the most normal thing in the world. In short, purely conceptual entities take any desired characteristic and in the hands of bigots can prove deadly. You say I anger them, I say they are angry already. These are people going through difficult times in their lives, often times with serious psychological problems and falling pray to political adventures. The moment that you ask a bigot to stop generalizing, they are forced to shut up. You are helping them break the circular thinking in their heads. It is the kryptonite of bigots. You may not succeed but you will make your life and that of those
I think that this kind of talk is here (right now) and I think that a lot of replies don't do a decent job of approaching both the grief of the thread starter and the frustrations of the country and it's citizens the thread starter is currently angry with. This ins't a moral problem for me. This is an information problem. I know a tiny bit more about this type of thing than you might think and I can tell you that about 80% of the facts are only known by 100% of the actual participants in the assault. The 20% the general public is allowed to know may or may not have anything to do with the 80% of the facts known by those who executed the orders they were given.
Morallity is easy to hide behind. This isn't moral.
The use of names of any type other than birth given names or terms of affection is quite likely to cause a lot of unnecessary friction and it's most certainly going to unlock emotions that might have stayed in check had the two parties involved abstained from playground tactics and instead approached the subject in a way that tried to identify facts, knowns, unknowns and assumptions.
I know for a fact that there isn't enough information present on this particular event and many others for people to form much more than purely emotional opinions and points of view. I won't commit to one view or another until I have all the information. This likely will not happen as I'm not part of the 100% group that has 80% of the knowledge. In reality only the men and women involved directly will know for sure what happened and even then many of them will wonder for years to come if they truly knew all the should have known when they executed their orders.
Anyway...
Some assembly required. Code-frog System Architects, Inc.
-
I think that this kind of talk is here (right now) and I think that a lot of replies don't do a decent job of approaching both the grief of the thread starter and the frustrations of the country and it's citizens the thread starter is currently angry with. This ins't a moral problem for me. This is an information problem. I know a tiny bit more about this type of thing than you might think and I can tell you that about 80% of the facts are only known by 100% of the actual participants in the assault. The 20% the general public is allowed to know may or may not have anything to do with the 80% of the facts known by those who executed the orders they were given.
Morallity is easy to hide behind. This isn't moral.
The use of names of any type other than birth given names or terms of affection is quite likely to cause a lot of unnecessary friction and it's most certainly going to unlock emotions that might have stayed in check had the two parties involved abstained from playground tactics and instead approached the subject in a way that tried to identify facts, knowns, unknowns and assumptions.
I know for a fact that there isn't enough information present on this particular event and many others for people to form much more than purely emotional opinions and points of view. I won't commit to one view or another until I have all the information. This likely will not happen as I'm not part of the 100% group that has 80% of the knowledge. In reality only the men and women involved directly will know for sure what happened and even then many of them will wonder for years to come if they truly knew all the should have known when they executed their orders.
Anyway...
Some assembly required. Code-frog System Architects, Inc.
code-frog wrote:
I think that this kind of talk is here (right now) and I think that a lot of replies don't do a decent job of approaching both the grief of the thread starter and the frustrations of the country and it's citizens the thread starter is currently angry with. This ins't a moral problem for me. This is an information problem.
It is not an information problem from the point of view of the thread starter.
code-frog wrote:
I know a tiny bit more about this type of thing than you might think and I can tell you that about 80% of the facts are only known by 100% of the actual participants in the assault. The 20% the general public is allowed to know may or may not have anything to do with the 80% of the facts known by those who executed the orders they were given.
Even if you have 100% of the "information" on this particular event, there is also a bigger picture to consider as well. But, granted, if we were to talk about the facts somewhere other than the CP, it could be an interesting exchange.
code-frog wrote:
Morallity is easy to hide behind. This isn't moral.
As far as I can see, it is moral for pretty much everyone that has baited.
code-frog wrote:
The use of names of any type other than birth given names or terms of affection is quite likely to cause a lot of unnecessary friction and it's most certainly going to unlock emotions that might have stayed in check had the two parties involved abstained from playground tactics and instead approached the subject in a way that tried to identify facts, knowns, unknowns and assumptions.
Sure, but they haven't and, furthermore, want to draw us all in under those terms. In the real world, they already have... over and over again. I have not discussed the incident itself for I believe this is not the place to do so. My objection remains focussed on the missuse of generalization. I understand it is the most effective tool to "disarm" those that pretend to want to have a discussion when all they really want to do is to vent.
-
Hi all, A story comes after my previous post, In a stary night, the US troops dropped a laser-targeted bomb to a house in California US, coz the army has intelligence about a terrorist hiding in the house(actually no one can confirm whether the intelligence is accurate or not). The house-owner, who is an innocent American, have all his 17 family members, including children, womens, killed under the attack. Fortunately, the house-owner was not in the house while the attack and survived. As most Americans are hot-blood, he stood out to blame his US government, not just for himself, he think he need to stop his government to do such thing again and again, and to stop more innocent life being lost in the future. In his belief, his government are created and run by the US citizens, and the government can only act on behalf of its citizen, so the citizens should responsible for what the government did. And US citizens should regulate what their government did. He starts to make noise about his complain, he choose to post on the codeproject forum about his belief and concern, and to arouse other americans belief also, so they can together regulate their government by making their noise louder and louder... But to his surprise.... he get many negative feedbacks from non-Americans as follow, - one Canadian response that the American should tolerate what his government did to him, coz it is just a mistake, and told him that he should allow this mistake happen again and again....coz the US government is created and run by US citizens and the army are all their childrens and go to war voluntarily. - one Pakistanian told the American to forgive his government coz US has donated a huge sum of money to Pakistan after earth quake - one Sweden advise the American should not post such silly message on American website coz the CIA will find him soon... - one Japanese said that all Americans and US government did many good things to the world before, so US government are qualified to kill their citizens by mistake again and again... - some Europeans response that the American are morons, retarded or idiots.... that's all :((
ppp001 wrote:
some Europeans response that the American are morons, retarded or idiots....
It's not americans but the authors of American foreign policy who are morons, retarded and idiots :doh:, a quick check of history confirms this X| and I am a European, woo hoo! Phil Harding.
myBlog [^] | mySite [^]