"Star Wars"

[Slizor]

Well since all the other topics got deleted this will be my return.
Ok the "son of star wars" is an insane idea(hey its suits america) first of all it would give them supremacy in yet another area of warfare, secondaly they would probably hit quite a few places by accident(you know american programming) thirdly just imagine what would happen if the rocket blew up on its way up with the system!
Wonder where shorbe is

[shorbe]

I don't really know enough about weapons technology to comment on the (in)effectiveness of a missle defence plan.

However, I do think that in the twenty first century, the threat to America won't come so much from enemy nukes, as terrorist acts committed by individuals (both Americans, and non-Americans). I don't think one million missiles will stop a guy driving a bus on a suicide mission, or with a small vial of deadly biological agents.

I think any American administration that wants (or expects) to fight a conventional war will be missing the boat entirely.

Of course, the best way to stop terrorists is to stop fucking about in their countries to begin with. Now there's a novel idea!

shorbe

[Slizor]

look at the little baby with his lollypop, ain't that sweet.....only j/k

[Septimus]

shorbe- The Star Wars thing is just a ploy to distract everyone from the fact that things are going down the shitter here. Rising oil prices, bigots in the Cabnet, incompetant leadership- that's why li'l Georgie jr is picking a fight with Saddam and trying to blame all of the Mid East woes on Iraq.

As Hobbes once said about Calvin, "Denial spring eternal."

-Septy.

[Slizor]

Umm just wondering, where did u get that from?

[Vinny-Mac]

At 2/23/01 03:27 PM, Bugger_all_99 wrote: Well since all the other topics got deleted this will be my return.
Ok the "son of star wars" is an insane idea(hey its suits america) first of all it would give them supremacy in yet another area of warfare, secondaly they would probably hit quite a few places by accident(you know american programming) thirdly just imagine what would happen if the rocket blew up on its way up with the system!
Wonder where shorbe is

[Perdix]

At 2/23/01 03:27 PM, Bugger_all_99 wrote: Well since all the other topics got deleted this will be my return.
Ok the "son of star wars" is an insane idea(hey its suits america) first of all it would give them supremacy in yet another area of warfare, secondaly they would probably hit quite a few places by accident(you know american programming) thirdly just imagine what would happen if the rocket blew up on its way up with the system!
Wonder where shorbe is

hmmm.... I don't really see why you had to turn this topic into a personal attack on the United States, it confuses the issue.
Do you really think that any government will say to itself "hmmm... we shouldn't be strengthening our defenses, because it isn't fair to other countries, we should let them have their chance of having military supremacy" That is a very weak argument. The Star Wars system is primarily a defensive weapon, are you saying that a country should not try to defend itself? Military technology is always advancing. It is practically a perpetual motion machine. That is how the battle field stays even. New weapons will be created and they need to be counteracted.
You don't know whether or not it will hit anything "accidentaly" and therefore you cannot use it as a logical basis for your argument. Your statement seems to only be there to give you the opportunity to make a personal attack on the United States. That is a very weak argument.
I don't know exactly what you mean by "the rocket blew up on its way up with the system!" Do you mean if a rocket blew up while being put in orbit? Well I suppose the same damn thing that would happen if any rocket blew up. It would create a varying degree of damage dependant upon where it blew up. That danger exists regardless of what the rocket is doing or where it is. And again, you don't know enough about the subject to know whether that is a real possability. This argument is not only weak, it is also irrelevant.

So, you have a weak argument, a very weak argument and a irrelevant and weak argument. Stop talking out of your ass.

shorbe, true, the main threat that exists now is terrorist bombings, but that does not negate the possability that such an attack could happen, especially with the availability of ICBM's since the fall of the Soviet Union.

[Slizor]

So you are for this new system.
Surely you can see that not only does this give them an unfair advantage in milatery(sp) things but gives them a card to play politically. Also it goes into a new age of space fighting, which will probably lead to more powerful and accurate systems.
"Not all new techonolgy is a step forward"

Bugger_all_99

[Perdix]

At 2/27/01 03:51 PM, Bugger_all_99 wrote: So you are for this new system.
Surely you can see that not only does this give them an unfair advantage in milatery(sp) things but gives them a card to play politically. Also it goes into a new age of space fighting, which will probably lead to more powerful and accurate systems.
"Not all new techonolgy is a step forward"

Bugger_all_99

I never said I was for it, and I'm not saying I'm against it.
War is not a game, It is not supposed to be fair. The technology will be developed, the question to be asked is who will develop it and when they will do it, do you want it to be your enemy?

[Slizor]

The development of weapons is a reason for war, don't ya know!
Why can't there just be peace?

[Perdix]

At 2/28/01 11:30 AM, Bugger_all_99 wrote: The development of weapons is a reason for war, don't ya know!
Why can't there just be peace?

The only real reason for war is because people are morons, and that is also why there can't be peace.

[Slizor]

Are you saying that it is in human nature to be moronic?

[Perdix]

At 3/1/01 12:59 PM, Bugger_all_99 wrote: Are you saying that it is in human nature to be moronic?

Yes.

My quote says that you should never underestimate people's capacity for genius, or for stupidity. Unfortunately it is usually stupidity. There are exceptions, and people are not always one or the other, but in general, most of all people are morons most of the time. I am subject to people's stupidity every day, and that quote serves to remind me that I should expect that, but not so much as to have contempt for people, because they can, and have, shown a good deal of intelligence.

It's not so much a matter of people not being able to have rational thought, they just keep themselves from doing so. This is the basis for most of my political views. I want a minimalist government because if it was a far-reaching government I would be at the whim of idiots, and the government I want is one that will protect me from the morons.

Bugger, I do enjoy debating with you.

[shorbe]

Septimus: The same could be said of all governments of course.

Perdix: Well, actually, there wouldn't be a threat of nuclear war if it weren't for a) boys and their toys, and b) those boys acting like school yard bullies on the international scene.

The threat of terrorism only exists against those who have terrorised the terrorists. US foreign policy is the direct cause.

I'm all for spreading the nukes around. It might even the score a little, and stop all this international grand standing, and moralising.

shorbe

[Slizor]

Perdix: But surely saying that people CAN be stupid and people CAN be intelligent doesn't that prove that its not in human nature(nature being something unstoppable and common in all of us)

ps. Intelligence is relative(sp)

Bugger_all_99

[Perdix]

At 3/2/01 01:57 AM, shorbe wrote: Perdix: Well, actually, there wouldn't be a threat of nuclear war if it weren't for a) boys and their toys, and b) those boys acting like school yard bullies on the international scene.

That is a good example of people's stupidity.

The threat of terrorism only exists against those who have terrorised the terrorists. US foreign policy is the direct cause.

I agree.

[Perdix]

At 3/2/01 11:32 AM, Bugger_all_99 wrote: Perdix: But surely saying that people CAN be stupid and people CAN be intelligent doesn't that prove that its not in human nature(nature being something unstoppable and common in all of us)

ps. Intelligence is relative(sp)

Bugger_all_99

Intelligence is relative.
Human nature is not that different than the nature of many animals, but it is not an absolute. Some animals want to be in charge, some want to follow whoever is in charge. But people are greedy, selfish and unthinking. It can be overcome, but that is the default status of all people unless they make a conscious effort to change it.

[Slizor]

The Freudian "id" is not the only part of a humans nature(that is if there is one). If someone can change their "nature" then surely it is in their nature to change their nature. Which would mean there is no underlying eternal "human nature". If there is no eternal human nature, then their is no human nature since "human nature" is something all humans have in common. :)

Bugger_all_99

"To walk the walk to find an innate human nature is a walk down the road of sophistry."

[shorbe]

Bugger: That's a circular argument, or begging the question.

Human nature could be a human construct, or completely random, both of which are mutually exclusive with determinism.

shorbe

[Slizor]

But if human nature is a human construct, it is therefore not their "nature"

[P-Chan]

At 3/3/01 06:06 PM, Bugger_all_99 wrote: But if human nature is a human construct, it is therefore not their "nature"

I'm having problems following...

Can someone please define what "human nature" is?

Is it typical and predictable patterns of behaviour all humans share?

[shorbe]

Bugger: I don't know if we're thinking of the same definitions. What I meant by it being a construct is that we could set the wheels in motion, so to speak, and they could run without us. That's one possibility.

P-Chan: I think getting people to agree on the definition is half the problem...hehe

shorbe

[Slizor]

Shorbe: If humans can "set the wheels in motion" then a human can set his wheels in a different direction.

P-Chan: I define human nature as something all humans have in common in the behaviour or their peresonality, some people say that human nature is a mix of good and bad

[P-Chan]

At 3/3/01 07:13 AM, Bugger_all_99 wrote: The Freudian "id" is not the only part of a humans nature(that is if there is one). If someone can change their "nature" then surely it is in their nature to change their nature. Which would mean there is no underlying eternal "human nature". If there is no eternal human nature, then their is no human nature since "human nature" is something all humans have in common. :)

This is so circular, that I get dizzy reading it.

[P-Chan]

At 3/4/01 06:13 AM, Bugger_all_99 wrote: Shorbe: If humans can "set the wheels in motion" then a human can set his wheels in a different direction.

P-Chan: I define human nature as something all humans have in common in the behaviour or their peresonality, some people say that human nature is a mix of good and bad

That's a good definition. But personally I'd rather use "behaviour humans typically have in common across cultures." Also I don't like using the words "good" or "bad" when describing humans. I kinda find that distinction too black and white.

Anyways...

wow, this thread really mutated over time eh? Reminds me of every other thread in the old BBS.

[Slizor]

Hmmm whats wrong with good and bad? I could have said good and evil, but thats WAY to biblical

[P-Chan]

At 3/4/01 03:33 PM, Bugger_all_99 wrote: Hmmm whats wrong with good and bad? I could have said good and evil, but thats WAY to biblical

It's too subjective of a term for me. ^_-

If there's one thing that I've learned, it's that there is rarely anything that's truely good or bad.

For example, this whole Star Wars issue, think about how certain Americans would think about it... they may see themselves as being on the side of good.

(Anyways... I'm user of the day! And I'm in a GOOD mood. ^_^)

[Slizor]

Thats just different persepectives, don't mean something is good or bad, sure good and bad can be perceived differently, but somethings are purely bad, when compared to other things that cud be done

[Mos]

At 2/23/01 03:27 PM, Bugger_all_99 wrote: Well since all the other topics got deleted this will be my return.
Ok the "son of star wars" is an insane idea(hey its suits america) first of all it would give them supremacy in yet another area of warfare, secondaly they would probably hit quite a few places by accident(you know american programming) thirdly just imagine what would happen if the rocket blew up on its way up with the system!
Wonder where shorbe is

Do you honestly think that American politics is that horrible? Compare it to the rest of the world, and you really won't find America's problems so significant.

Dozens of countries have implemented Gun Control, or gun bans. Australia alone went up 300% in gun homicide. (Note the irony.)

In the Middle East, you still have racism.

You have 3rd World dictatorships who pile more money into Military than anything else.

Considering all of this, you really can't say that the USA Government is full of morons who can't tie their own shoe, much less run the Government.

The only difference is that America is a major player in International Politics. The reason why they are a major player in International Politics is because they have the world's most powerful military.

[shorbe]

Bugger: Being able to set the wheels in motion, and being able to alter their course, or stop them, are completely different things. I'm not saying I necessarily believe the wheels in motion theory, just that it's an alternate possibility.

As for what's wrong with "good" and "evil," read Nietzsche. It was one of his major themes, and also the basis for later existentialism and post-modernism.

Explaining it very briefly, good, and evil (or any value statements) are human, political constructs, and to become all that we can, we need to see past the confines of our own cultural, political, or philosophical setting.

Incidentally, Marx was influenced by Nietzsche.

shorbe