Is Islam in accordance with rationality and science?

Discussion in 'Abrahamic Religions' started by Abdullah, Mar 24, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Dogbrain

    Dogbrain New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    Messages:
    813
    Likes Received:
    0

    Barbarians and savages who are willing to launch attacks into the heart of civilian cities do not listen to reason.

    Note that I have not named a "side" in this, but I am sure that you will denounce the barbarities of Israel while making excuses for the barbarities of the Palestinians and their foreign terrorist allies.

    "Collective punishment" as used by Israel doesn't work because the perpetrators are not punished. The leaders of terrorist organizations like the PLO, Hamas, and the rest of those filthy, savage scum are usually quite safe from any acts of reprisal, as are the leaders of Israel. Instead, they all play the sport of using each others' followers as shooting targets.
     
  2. bob x

    bob x New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, slavery is not the CAUSE, slavery is the EXCUSE. Every violent thug has his "grievances". In recent news hereabouts (Oakland, across the Bay from San Fran), a cop shot a kid in the back and was convicted only of "involuntary manslaughter" instead of murder-- so some of the protestors looted a Nike store. Was the grievance real? Of course it was. Did this excuse the behavior? No, of course not. Did the community in Oakland support this behavior? It turns out, the looters weren't even from there, had just come into town because they were expecting that the protests would give them cover.

    You pretend that the Palestinian conduct is justified because their grievances are the worst in the whole history of the world. Well, that isn't even true, not by a long shot; but it wouldn't be an excuse anyway.
    Germany gave a plurality to the Nazi Party, so they got the crap bombed out of them. Approximately half of the US voted for Bush, twice; I can (and do) argue about the legitimacy of the outcomes, but the rest of us certainly let him get away with it-- and that cost us a lot of severe consequences, and the loss of a lot of people's friendship and respect was among them; I wouldn't expect anything less. The Palestinians had a choice of moving toward an independent state living at peace with other states, or of continuing to fight the war over and over again-- they chose the war, and now want to complain that it's going badly for them, again, as if this should be a surprise.
    If strong majorities of the Irish were for the real IRA, then you would still be fighting.
    I have indeed answered, often; you just don't like my answer: the Palestinians DELIBERATELY put their children in harm's way.
    I was talking about this principle which the Arabs seem to think is "the law", that launching repeated wars with the express aim of genocide, and losing those wars, should not cost them anything: they should just be given everything back so they can try again.
    Who knows? I am going by the PUBLIC POLICY of Hamas; you want to speculate about some secret messages that no-one knows the content of with any particularity.
    They can certainly tell that some people were continuing the violence; but the question was: what was the mood of the majority of the people? I don't think it was ever anything like what we see in Palestine.
    Israel/Palestine has already been through this phase, through the "peace process" years from Camp David through Oslo. Israel started out insisting that they would never talk to the PLO because they were just the political wing of a terrorist organization-- but then they did talk to them anyhow, and the result was a splintering into the faction that would grant a grudging recognition of Israel and renounce violence, most of the time anyhow, and those who insisted on fighting on and on. Hamas IS the analogue of the Real IRA, in this parallelism you are drawing: with the crucial difference that in this case, the "loonies" as you call them command the support of the majority.
    Those who had legally recognized titles before, from old grants by previous sultans, were not deprived of them. The problem is that in most of Palestine there had never been any titles at all, but clans had established their borders by long-ago, or in some cases not-so-long-ago, fights with neighbors. And this was the situation because everyone had originally entered as squatters rather than purchasers, since the last people with a system of land ownership had been violently dispossessed and left to wander. Where do you want to draw the "statute of limitations" on this?
    Of course. But where in your list of villains are the people who decided the right response to the existence of Zionists was to murder whichever Jews happened to be around, particularly the non-Zionists who had nothing to do with it but had been there for centuries? You just don't care about random murder: yeah, yeah, now you are going to come back with "I do so care!" but you don't care enough to even think of it as a problem.
    It didn't start out as "tit for tat" killing: for decades it was one-sided.
    You only want to spread the blame in one direction.
    You were not understanding what I was talking about, at all. When the governments of Togo, Ecuador, Malaysia, etc. vote on a General Assembly resolution, they aren't of course going to do anything, and that is why they can vote as they do, sheerly as an expression of the resentment against the West. Most of those governments would squash like bugs any ethnic group that was randomly launching rockets against their towns, but they aren't dealing with the situation, just spouting off in an inconsequential talk-forum; you talk about how there are all these resolutions and nothing ever comes of it-- well OF COURSE NOT. Actually doing something about the situation would require a lot of money and/or force: the United States sends Egypt four billion dollars, every year, because that was Carter's bargain, a dollar-for-dollar match of what we send to Israel if Egypt will keep the peace; the EU, as well as the US, sends money to keep the PA afloat, and would have to send a lot more if it were to be built up into a functioning government, along with a lot of troops. And none of that is going to come from these governments that reflexively vote "condemn Israel" in those resolutions. This is what I mean by "they have nothing to say about it."
    I'm in my bathrobe, if that helps :p
    I said that weak and poor NATIONS from far away that are not going to contribute anything have nothing to say about it. I have "something to say" about gay rights in the US because I live here (unfortunately, so do a lot of Christians who also live here); you have "nothing to say about it" in the same sense that I have "nothing to say about" burkha-wearing in Egypt or England, and that neither of us have anything to say about either gay rights or burkha-wearing in Belgium. Of course, both of us can TALK about any of these things on this forum, but that's all it is, just talk. Togo and Ecuador and Malaysia could vote on General Assembly resolutions about same-sex marriage or face-veiling, and it wouldn't mean any more than it does when they vote about Israel/Palestine.
    Right back atcha, babe. Your constant personal nastiness really does wear thin.
    Yeah, Lord Curzon told you it was OK, and he killed enough civilians, he should know.
    Uh, no. It had no resemblance to that at all.
    Diogenes was the LAST person who could possibly be suspected of thinking that "good" means "obeying superior power". It is utterly absurd that you do not realize how profoundly against your side of this argument Diogenes would be.
    I never said any such thing. God is the creator of freedom: that I have said to you often; it is not just that you do not agree with what I am saying, you do not seem capable of listening.
    You need to have AT LEAST the comprehension of a 5-year-old: how can you possibly understand anything if you can't even get that far? What are you doing, trying to understand quantum mechanics, when you can't wrap your head around arithmetic?
    I thought you believed that too: are you now telling me that your "God" is not eternal??? The difference is that you apply this wildly inappropriate model of contingent free-will choice-making.
    Your other option is killing at least a million Americans and several times that many Japanese. You don't get to choose anything except one of those two options.
    The "it" in the sentence you were responding to was THE DECISION BY THE JAPANESE TO KEEP FIGHTING AND KILLING OVER AND OVER, EVEN AFTER IT WAS CLEAR THAT THEY HAD LOST.
    The fact is, for all the noise they make, the Palestinians don't have the capacity to kill people by the millions, as the Axis powers did. It has been decades since Palestinians even managed to kill hundreds at a time, and in their current tight confinement they have difficulty killing dozens. Now, if they do acquire powerful weaponry, and remain as stupid as they are now, then, indeed, they could end up being blown to hell.
    ??? You're trying to blame us for Serbia/Bosnia? We were never in Yugoslavia, and I won't accept blame for the old Soviet bloc, either. But from Portugal to Finland, only the very old remember war, from their early childhoods, and this is something that has never happened before; Japan has gone through a lifetime without an outburst of civil strife, and that too is unique in recorded history. You think that is not important, but it is. And the peace and prosperity are spreading: it is unfortunate that the Islamic world, most of sub-Saharan Africa, and large parts of Latin America are not sharing in the trend-- but in the case of Islam, it is sounding increasingly to me that this is because you don't want it.
    The whole war was a great evil. The blame for it belongs with those who started it. You take the curious position that starting the violence is always justifiable, but ending it is a terrible thing.
     
  3. c0de

    c0de Vassal

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Messages:
    2,237
    Likes Received:
    0
    I know the memory starts to slip at a certain age...

    How old are you again?

    Did I ever say I support the Arab actions, like you are supporting the American actions? NO! I gave NO-ONE the moral highground.

    You on the other hand are saying the Americans were RIGHT to firebomb Japan and NUKE their cities!

    The blame for using NUCLEAR WEAPONS ON CIVILLIANS does not belong with anyone other than THOSE WHO USE NUKES ON CIVILLIANS !

    :rolleyes:

    First of all, those were NOT the only two choices.
    America has sustained a blocade on Cuba for half a century.
    Why didn't it just NUKE them and get it over with?

    Also, even if that were the case, I would pick the first ON PRINCIPLE.
    Targetting CIVILLIANS IS WRONG! No matter WHAT !

    Wrong! The war was OVER! There were no "axis powers"
    Japan was surrounded, and without allies!
    It had no resources that it did not get from the outside
    and the US had it surrounded. IT STILL NUKED IT!

    This all forgetting the fact of the firebombing which preceded the nukes

    Pay attention!

    You said your actions brought "peace to large sections of the world"
    I TOLD YOU IT DIDN'T ! It wasn't even a decade until the US was engaged in Korea !

    Hey!

    *knocks on bob's skull*

    Wake up!

    If you are saying there is a higher reality than God, and "good" is part
    of that reality then that means you believe good precedes God. That is EXACTLY what Plato said!


    The age old *(unoriginal)* retreat into the free-will defense. First of all, this "god" of yours is not omnipotent and omniscient. This is not GOD, it is some pagan fantasy.

    Second of all, do you think that God defines "good" yes or no?

    (If you say yes, then you have given up
    If you say no, then you are a platonist
    It's that simple)

    Did you have a concussion recently or something?? .... in any case, it is clear that you are a platonist if you believe the definition is eternal

    (and no, I do not believe it is eternal!!! God being eternal does not mean good is eternal! God can change his mind and make evil good and good evil if He wanted.)

    (lol) speculating on what he MIGHT or MIGHT NOT have obeyed
    is well beyond your clueless authority (it's cute that u think u can speak for Diogenes though)

    What we DO KNOW is what YOU and PLATO believe
    and how "profoundly against" Diogenes was with regards to that.


    Pal, I am not trying to "wrap my head around arithmetic".
    Get that through YOUR boring mechanistic mind.

    I am asking questions which go BEYOND arithmetic.
    Which show that arithmetic is nothing if not arbitrary!
    There is an exact parrallel between the "4" and the "good" in our debate
    UNDERSTAND THAT!
     
  4. Muslimwoman

    Muslimwoman Coexistence insha'Allah

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2007
    Messages:
    3,633
    Likes Received:
    43
    You're still trying to compare Detroit to Palestine, it's just silly so I'm not going there.

    You are just making up nonsense now.

    Actually they chose the party who promised to bring food, water, services, jobs, etc ... as we vote for the same things and then get nutters like Bush.

    However, they were democratically elected so it is fundamentally wrong to now say we will not talk to your leaders because you didn't vote the way we wanted you to and your leaders are nutters. The world all accepted that Bush was a war mongering nut job who couldn't string a sentence together but did we all say we will no longer deal with the US and had we done so would it be fair ... no.

    That is very true and let's hope the violence and riots of the past 3 nights are not an indication of growing support in the youth.

    However if the British were limiting food, energy and money to Republicans shall we bet how long it would take for the Real IRA to get a strong public following and probably win an election if they promised to return food, energy, money and "National Pride" to the Republicans?

    The IRA protest marches were formed with men on the inside surrounded by women and children, knowing the troops would not fire at women and children. That is DELIBERATELY putting children in harms way .... so guess again!!

    It also doesn't explain the number of Palestinian children killed in schools and homes by "stray" bullets ... or does their very existence mean they are deliberately put in harms way?

    What the hell have Arabs got to do with this? The laws were formed by OUR countries and the Arabs signed up to them. WE decided it was wrong to keep occupied land so should we now exclude Arabs from those laws simply because you want to support Israel in anything it does?

    This offer was confirmed by a Mossad operative ... hardly much of a speculation.

    Then I'm afraid you have no concept of what the troubles in Ireland were like at their height.

    So you're not even prepared to accept that people who lived on land for generations (Muslims, Christians and Jews) had rights to the land and you think total strangers in other countries had every right to lodge ownership claims .. therefore no blame lies on the Ottomans. :confused:

    Indeed Arab riots began in the 1920's and to be honest if some stranger turned up at my families farm with armed guards and said we own this land so bugger off I would probably riot too when the local courts upheld my claim but the ruling foreigners upheld THEIR own land sales.

    I am not advocating violence as the answer but I do believe that people get to a point that unattended anger and frustrations boil over into violence. We can easily see how this trouble began to build in the writers of various periods:

    One labor Zionist leader wrote:
    "How can Jews, who demand emancipation in Russia, rob rights and act selfishly toward other workers upon coming to Eretz Israel? If it is possible for many a people to hide fairness and justice behind cannon smoke, how and behind what shall we hide fairness and justice? We should absolutely not deceive ourselves with terrible visions. We shall never possess cannons, even if the goyim shall bear arms against one another for ever. Therefore, we cannot but settle in our land fairly and justly, to live and let live. "
    (Meir Dizengoff (writing as "Dromi") "The Workers Question," Hatzvi, September 21, 22, 190

    In 1891 Asher Ginsberg wrote:
    From abroad we are accustomed to believing that the Arabs are all desert savages, like donkeys, who neither see nor understand what goes on around them. But this is a big mistake... The Arabs, and especially those in the cities, understand our deeds and our desires in Eretz Israel, but they keep quiet and pretend not to understand, since they do not see our present activities as a threat to their future... However, if the time comes when the life of our people in Eretz Israel develops to the point of encroaching upon the native population, they will not easily yield their place.

    Here we see a Zionist writer acknowledging that there is a native population and they will not easily accept a threat to their future.

    Britain attempted to stop the Jewish immigration once they realised what a monumental mistake they had made and this aggrivated Jewish tensions.

    What I am suggesting is that we cannot only blame the people who use violence but should also blame the policies that create such an atmosphere of anger and frustration that people feel they have no alternative but to turn to violence.

    Are you extracting the urine?

    In the 20's the Arab protests were originally peaceful, then turned ugly and then violent. Then came the Hebron massacre.

    There were many suggestions at the time, both from Arabs and Jews, that the British Military had ensured these riots and stopped the Jews defending themselves in an attempt to prove to the British government that their immigration policy of Jews was doomed to failure.

    The Palin Court of Inquiry blamed the Zionists for the riots (not for the violence but for the bad feeling which led to the protests):

    'whose impatience to achieve their ultimate goal and indiscretion are largely responsible for this unhappy state of feeling’

    The Haganah were then born as an organisation (although had already existed in defense volunteers).

    Moving on a decade (although the riots continued until 1929) the Irgun (established in 1931) used violence against arab villages, began killing Arab civilians and blowing up British soldiers and their policy was:

    "every Jew had the right to enter Palestine; only active retaliation would deter the Arabs; only Jewish armed force would ensure the Jewish state".

    The Irgun were of course only one Jewish group at the time.

    So even if we want to imagine that the violence was totally one sided we could only accept that for the period of the 1920's (although there were skirmished between land owners and residents prior to the protests of the 20's) and after that you will have to accept that, based on historical knoweldge, tit for tat violence and murder took place from that day until this.

    Utter rubbish, I have repeatedly said that blame belongs on both sides but it doesn't suit your agenda to acknowledge that.
     
  5. bob x

    bob x New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    0
    You only criticized the Palestinians for their choice of targets, agreeing that it was perfectly right to start killing people who want political changes.
    It was not good, but nothing about the war was good, and the alternative choice of letting the war continue was worse.
    And yet you feel that the blame for murdering the inhabitants of the Jewish Quarter belongs to another other than those who murdered the inhabitants of the Jewish Quarter. The blame for violence, in my view, belongs principally with those who START the violence.
    Cubans, unlike Japanese, did not have the capacity to kill millions. Russia tried to give them such capacity in 1962, which was a grave error: yes indeed, we would have had to destroy the island, if Russia had not backed down.
    Their troops in Manchuria, Korea, coastal China, Taiwan, and Vietnam were still killing people every day. They were holding large numbers of prisoners, who were starving since the Japanese no longer even had the supplies to feed themselves very well, and were using them for experiments in chemical and biological weaponry, in an absurd hope of winning the race for non-conventional weapons. I totally agree with you that it would have been rational for them to end the war, but until they agreed, it was certainly not over. We were not going to invade all their territories at the cost of millions of our own lives (and more millions of theirs); our strategy was to cut the head off the snake, but by conventional means that would have required an estimated one million deaths on our side, and more on theirs.
    Which is perfectly true. Japan in particular had never known decades without civil war and/or war with neighbors, since before there are any records of human inhabitation; neither had Germany.
    The fact that there were also large sections of the world to which peace did not come immediately does not contradict the fact that to large sections of the world peace did come. And what has become of Korea since? The North still is impoverished and threatens renewal of the violence, but South Korea enjoys a prosperity far beyond anything in its entire previous history, and even the habit of changing government through violent overthrow has gone away; a whole generation has grown up who can afford to be ungrateful to us, because they have no recollection of what it used to be like.
    That is not what I said. What I am trying to explain is that God is a higher reality than this petty anthropomorphic being you imagine.
    That is nothing like anything that Plato said, either. For one thing, Plato had no Abrahamic conception of "God" either; for another, he certainly did not believe that any of these relationships have anything to do with sequence in time.
    "Age-old" is an understatement: it is eternal.
    God is not an actor within time, making choices based on internally stored information. The notions of "power" and "knowledge" really don't apply.
    As a contingent, arbitrary decree? Certainly not.
    This is precisely the petty anthropomorphizing I am talking about. Your "God" has no eternal nature at all, but is just a creature within time, like any other person except "bigger"; this is a gross trivialization.
    The passage you cited had zero relevance to the issue. Diogenes was addressing neither my beliefs about ethics nor Plato's, but rather Plato's idea that words like "cup" reflect pre-existing realities, a concept I have as little patience with as Diogenes. On the subject of obedience to authority, you are seriously ignorant if you think that is how Diogenes conducted himself. Go read some more.
    I can't argue with you there! You don't have a clue, and aren't willing to be given one. It would be one thing if you had simply misinterpreted what you had read about foundational issues of mathematics due to your lack of education in the subject, but when it is patiently explained to you and you still refuse to get it, that is willful.
    Yes, it is possible to state axioms for arithmetic in a way that doesn't look wrong, to the uninitiated, but from which you can prove that 2+2=5: from which it then follows that God does not exist, and that your screen-name is not c0de, and that the moon is made of green cheese-- and that 2+2=4, that God does exist, that your screen-name is c0de, that the moon is not made of green cheese-- in short, that every statement you can formulate is true, and false, simultaneously. This is just wrong, if there is any distinction between truth and falsity.
    There is nothing arbitrary about what I just explained to you (for the second time). There is nothing arbitrary about arithmetic. There are indeed things which are arbitrary: whether there is choice in the universe, whether there are infinities which are more than countable but less than continuous, and presumably other questions we have not yet identified as being in this category.
    Yep. "Good" is no more arbitrary than "2+2=4".
     
  6. c0de

    c0de Vassal

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Messages:
    2,237
    Likes Received:
    0
    ..

    On Hiroshima & Nagasaki:

    "The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan."

    ^^ Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz
    , Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet


    Other people who disagreed with the view that strategic nuclear bombing was needed included General of the Army MacArthur, Fleet Admiral Leahy, plus the Brigadier General responsible for delivering decrypted Japanese cables. In fact, even Eisenhower disagreed with its use (in his memoirs):

    “In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.”

    Also, the reason why they didn't surrender sooner was because the US was demanding an unconditional surrender with the threat of putting the Japenese emperor on trial for war crimes. A ludicrously hypocritical position, considering the war crimes commited by American commanders went completely unpunished. This demand, historians say, needlessly prolonged the war, especially considering that in the end MacArthur himself got the emperor off the hook by reminding his superiors that since he was a religious figure, his presence was neccessary for a stable Japanese society. Again proving the complete absurdity of the whole position.

    You just contradicted yourself and destroyed your own argument.

    Yes, the Japanese were out of everything needed to continue the war, including daily food rations and, by the way, ammunition, which doesn't grow on trees. Yet, you believe they still (somehow magically) had the "capacity to kill millions??

    And let‘s not forget that this is all basically besides the point。 I am not even interested in whether or not the nuke was neccessary. I believe it was wrong ON PRINCIPLE. Here are the words of Einstein on the issue:

    "Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?"

    Essentially, your nation conducted the war in a manner no better than the Nazis. Yet, they were hanged, while you claim to have provided "peace" to "large sections of the world". Did you know that Lemay (USAF's top commander) outrightly said to MacNamara that had the Americans lost the war, the American high command would have been successfully convicted of war crimes?? (This is officially on record). Let me remind you that the US killed more than half a million Japanese civillians. It destroyed 60 of its cities -before- the nukes were even dropped.

    It's a little hard to maintain a state of war when your entire country is levelled to the ground, which is basically the state Japan and Germany were in. And you are using this as some sort of argument to support your position? A position which should have (legally and morally) landed your commanders on the noose in Nuremberg?

    :rolleyes: Actually yea, it does contradict that "fact" when the "large" areas where peace came were limited to Europe and Japan, and the area where the situation was essentially unchanged was: the WHOLE REST OF THE FREKKIN PLANET.





    On the Israeli Palestine Issue:


    WoW...

    In all my time on this forum, this is a first... Do you even realize that you contradicted your own line of accusations against me? I don't even know what kind of super fallacy this is... I think we might have to invent a new term for this uber-fail.

    In the first paragraph, you (correctly) point out that I was against the choice of targets (i.e. arab attacks on jewish civillians). Yet in the second paragraph you accuse me of sparing the arabs the blame? (lolz)

    For the umpteenth time: I gave no one the moral highground. Yet you keep accusing me (incoherently) of anti-semetic hatred??

    This is a truly absurd position. If one person kills your son, is it okay for you to kill his entire familly as retribution? According to your position, because he started the violence, you can do pretty much whatever you want and blame it on him! (lolz)






    On Your Philosophy (and general lack of honesty)


    Your pedantic ranting is not going to save your from the history of this very thread.

    In post #190 (after agreeing with Goedel) you claimed that he was not a platonist. In the following post, I provided you proof in the form of his own words stating that he was a Platonist. This proved that you had misunderstood Goedel, and Plato.

    What followed was your disappearence from the forum for weeks. When you finally managed to reply, you never answered for the outright mistake you made. Instead, you came back with an attempt to sidetrack the entire issue, by trying to start the whole debate over. And that is exactly what you have been trying to do ever since.

    What you seem incapable of accepting is that Plato's own position (and Diogenes rebuttal) is all directly relevant here. You have have re-ignited this debate on dishonest grounds, i.e. without first acknowledging your error basic error (from which you have extrapolated your entire argument). Case in point:

    First of all, Red contradicts Black, sorry. Once again you have shown your own views are in contradiction with each other.

    And second, by denying the fact that it is an arbitrary decree, you are taking up Plato's position. He said exactly the same thing as you, and it relates directly to his (discredited) philosophy, based in the "world of ideas" (i.e. the higher reality which superceded the greek understanding of God.)

    The true Abrahamic position is that God is the author of our reality, and everything in that subservient reality (by definition) is the result of His arbitrary command, including the definition of "good."

    You have either misunderstood, or are trying to malign my views. When I say He can change His mind whenever He wishes, that does not mean His choice would take place within our "whenever". He could simply change the past of our "reality" without His own reality being affected. As far as our "reality" is concerned, nothing would seem different. Another example of why the charge of anthromorphicism does not apply to this philosophy. (There would have to be an inherent reality to the "antro" for anything to "morph" into it here.)

    My advice to you is similar, yet more benificial:

    >>>--------------> Go ponder some more, professor strangelove.
     
  7. c0de

    c0de Vassal

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Messages:
    2,237
    Likes Received:
    0
    p.s.

    self correction:



    What the hell am I talking about? Peace didn't even come to Europe! In fact, not even to Germany, until the Berlin Wall fell. Europe (like the rest of the world) came close to total anhilation via nuclear holocaust THREE TIMES! And the only thing which saved it, according to the words of Robert MacNamara was "sheer luck!"

    The idea that the US "saved the planet" in WWII is a fantasy that only the Western "patriotic orthodoxy" (as the West's own academics have labelled it) buys into. The revolutions, genocides, wars, proxy conflicts etc. all go to show that it was business as usual for the most part, but not quite. The hundreds of tit-for-tat nuclear test clearly showed that the game has fundamentally changed for the worse and civillization has never been closer to its deathbed.


     
  8. bob x

    bob x New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    0
    What is silly is your pretense that no-one has a history of oppression like the Palestinians, and that this is why they "have to" behave like they do. Many people have had it worse, for longer, and have not behaved as badly.
    Just like the Germans only wanted the party who would make the trains run on time? Come on, no-one can pretend that either the Nazis or Hamas made any secret about what else they stood for.
    Huh? No it isn't. We have no obligation to them. You deal with the United States, or with China, or with whoever, to the extent that it is in your interests to do so. We have no interest in dealing with Hamas.
    The same evil that the Palestinians do. The Palestinians also use mosques and schools as arsenals, something I have not heard of the Irish doing.
    Hardly. Poland still occupies, and thickly settles, Silesia, upper Pomerania, and parts of East Prussia (the rest is occupied by Russia), and Germany recognizes this. Yugoslavia kept Istria, and Italy makes no demand on Croatia for its return. China is still in Manchuria (and has settled it so heavily that there are virtually no Manchus left who do not have Chinese blood in them, and even they no longer speak the native language anymore), the US is still in Micronesia, and Russia is still in Sakhalin and the Kuriles, and while Japan sometimes asks for the Kuriles back, nobody supports that. The principle that a nation which starts a war can be punished by loss of territory was never abrogated.
    I cannot take seriously what Hamas will not say PUBLICLY.
    Admittedly. All I was saying was that it was never difficult to find Irish who wanted the violence to end.
    The Jews lived on the land for generations, before total strangers from other countries took it.
    You have a very odd notion of how things worked. Where the Jews were purchasing, the tenant farmers had always been paying rent to the landlords, and had never been under any illusion that the government would consider the land "theirs"; now, out in the "Sultan's land" (as much of the West Bank and adjoining areas was called then) there were no overlords between the government and the farmers, but while the clans claimed particular areas, they did not expect any "local courts" to enforce these; border disputes were resolved by vendettas with neighboring clans (but this was not very frequent). Some Zionists at one point proposed "buying" a lot of the Sultan's land from the Ottoman government, but the Sultan said "I could not possibly cut a piece of the heart out of my realm"; and this was just as well, since the trouble would have started much more quickly. Now, where landlords sold their estates over the heads of the tenant farmers, many of the tenants continued to work the land for the new owners-- but, since the moshav and kibbutz movements urged Jews to do agricultural labor themselves (out of a socialist ideology that the main problem with the Jews was that they had been pushed into essentially parasitic occupations and needed to get back to honest proletarian work), the Arabs were gradually squeezed out of employment. The urban economy was booming, but the rural Arabs often lacked the skills as well as the desire to change lifestyle in this way, and there was competition for these jobs anyway from Egyptian and Yemeni immigrants (who outnumbered the Jewish immigrants, but were never subjected to violent attacks).

    The British attempted to establish a land registry conferring formal "title" for the first time, but there was little co-operation, partly because the inhabitants were accustomed to distrust all government, and especially this government by non-Muslims, and partly because all the clan territories were regarded as communal, not individual, property, so that parcelling it out among the nuclear families only stirred up quarrels about who should get what. One book I read noted that during the "Ellis Island" period of mass immigration to the US (late 19th, early 20th century) we received a sizable number of Arabs from Lebanon especially but also Egypt and Syria-- but virtually zero from Palestine, because Palestinians could not, like people from other countries, sell off their little bits of property for "grubstake" (the minimal money to cover passage, and to keep afloat until settled). This situation where most of the people didn't "own" anything was not the fault of the Ottomans: the absence of a regular system of property law goes back to the way the people had originally entered, as squatters rather than purchasers (a Zionist would put it bluntly that the problem was that none of the land was theirs to begin with). Of course, it was not the Palestinians' fault either that they had grown up in this situation where moving elsewhere was not a realistic option for them.
    Here you are quoting a Zionist who points out that the Jews had no weapons and were settling peaceably, and is expressing the strong desire that it stay that way-- and somehow twisting that around to make it their fault that this changed.
    Yes we can. You are depicting the Palestinians as overgrown toddlers, unable to act in any way except giving in to their basest emotions, as if we should expect nothing more from them.
    This is extraordinary. The first protest in 1920 "only" killed dozens, and it is true that it was a long time before they started to kill hundreds at a time, but that is not what I call "peaceful"; moreover, the victims of the "originally peaceful" protests were not even the Zionist immigrants, but a community which had been there for 800 years and generally had little sympathy with the Zionist project-- but they were Jews so that made them close enough. And these weren't the first murders, just the first organized murders.
    The Palin Court was composed precisely of those elements of the British Military who connived in the riots, as was known not only to the Arabs and Jews (as you acknowledge) but also to the British government, which refused to accept their report and fired them.
    Now are you pretending that the riots stopped in 1929? The violence escalated dramatically in the 30's, with the importation of arms from the Nazi regime in Germany.
    The "Revisionist Zionists" founded a separate organization in 1931 (the name "Irgun" came later) but it was not until 1937 that they voted to, and began to, undertake "retaliatory" as well as "defensive" actions. I would use the word "terrorist" for their "retaliatory" acts; I never consider retribution a moral justification. The point is, that my original statement that the Jewish terrorism only started after decades of one-sided violence was quite correct.
    Only in a general hand-waving kind of way. When it comes to any specific crimes by the Palestinian side, you always engage in excuse-mongering, or flat-out denial of the facts. Of course you can find people on the pro-Israeli side who similarly indulge in excuse-mongering or denial, but it is downright universal on the pro-Palestinian side, not just from the Palestinians themselves but from even "moderate" Muslims like you. This has everything to do with why, for example, nobody can take a "truce" offer from Hamas seriously: we all know it would just mean years of "Rockets? What rockets? The Israelis are lying when they say there have been rockets launched!" or, when a rocket strike is too large to deny, "We have no idea who fired that rocket! We (heh heh) deplore and denounce whoever did such a thing."
     
  9. bob x

    bob x New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nimitz was speaking in ignorance of the content of the Japanese "peace feeler", which would not be disseminated until much later. The Japanese set four conditions:
    1) Japan to retain all pre-war territories; that is, Manchuria, Korea, Taiwan, and parts of China as well as Micronesia, the Ryukyus, and the Kuriles (we eventually did let them have the Ryukyus back)
    2) Japan to retain its political system; that is, the unquestionably divine Emperor and the dominance of the military over the civilian
    3) No disarmament, Japanese troops to surrender their arms to their own officers, not to any foreigners
    4) No reparation payments-- this one we were agreeable to, the Versailles experiment having shown how silly it was to expected the defeated to pay. But the rest amounted to a request not for a permanent peace, but for a respite so that Japan could rebuild its strength and start anew; this was an insanely absurd position to be taking under the circumstances.
    Of course it was a debatable decision. Aside from the military figures you cited, many of the physicists involved in the project were torn. One proposal was blowing off the top of Mt. Fuji, as a symbolic demonstration of the power of the weapon without the human cost. I would certainly not take the position that it was unquestionably right; I just find your position that it was unquestionably wrong to be ignoring the ugliness of the war and how horrible it would have been to let it continue.
    We never made such a threat; the Japanese perceived such a threat because, of course, the emperor WAS a criminal. None of that massive killing would have taken place without his acquiescence. The point is, that the decision as to how best to handle him was ours, just like the decision about everything; they had no right to be demanding any kind of conditions at all.
    His religious role was precisely what had to be abolished. MacArthur made sure to publish pictures of his first meeting with Hirohito showing poses that made quite plain who was master and who was subordinate. MacArthur certainly thought Hirohito's trial and execution would have been disastrously counter-productive-- the point is, it was entirely up to him.
    I'd like you to tell the soldiers who had to fight for every square inch of Okinawa how the Japanese had no ammo to shoot, there at the end. You could ask my dad's cousin Tom, except that he didn't come back.

    And of course, we were hoping to get the remaining prisoners out alive: the Japanese were killing them quite rapidly without any need to expend ammo.
    Then you believe that, ON PRINCIPLE, the war should have been allowed to go on and on.
    The Germans and the Japanese started the whole thing. Of course they were responsible for all the deaths.
    That's very odd, since Lemay (the model for Jack T. Ripper in Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove) famously called for pre-emptive nuclear strikes during the 1968 campaign. In any case, the position is downright silly: if the Americans had lost the war, the Germans and Japanese would have killed anybody they felt like killing, without bothering to accuse anybody of "crimes".
    It is hard to get numbers on how many millions of civilians the Japanese killed, but it is certainly in double-digits.
    Yes, but they did so anyway. Again, I do not disagree with you that it was totally irrational for them to continue fighting: in Japan's case, the outcome had never been in doubt since the battle of Midway. But rationality seemed to have nothing to do with it; that is why the atomic bomb question is difficult: how much was enough to persuade them to stop it? Not all of the Japanese military was ready to give up even after the atomic bombs, attempting the unthinkable (an attack on the Imperial Palace) to prevent the surrender broadcast.
    And you don't think continents are "large" apparently... But the Pax Americana has been rather wider. South American countries, for example, used to fight border wars with each other routinely; but after those nasty Yanqui imperialists shut down the Bolivia vs. Paraguay and Peru vs. Ecuador wars, there hasn't been another (a two-day set-to between Honduras and Salvador over a futbol riot in 1969, in Central not South America but close enough, is the exception that proves the rule). And this despite the fact that the region is quite impoverished and had a lot of internal civil strife (undeniably the Yanquis often made it worse), although civil strife, also, is disappearing there: Columbia and Venezuela are exceptions, but Bolivia and Peru were notorious for coups and civil wars but nowadays just have raucous politics with nobody killed, and the politics of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay are now fairly normal, in contrast with their ugly pasts.

    The general tendency toward peace and prosperity in the world is not restricted to places where America has been a dominant influence, nor did the trend cease (far from it!) in 1945, rather the sphere of peace and prosperity has continued to expand. I was simply pointing to those cases where peace has been continuous since 1945 because such a lengthy peace, in any substantial part of the world, has so few precedents in human history: you really do have to go back to the Pax Romana or a few of the stabler dynasties in China.

    Overview of the world: in 2000 the population crossed six billion, so I divide the world into six pieces; China had a billion; so did Islam; India did not (especially taking out the overlap with Islam) but put some of the east Asian countries with Hindu/Buddhist culture in with it to make a Greater India; the US plus the EU as it was in 2000 don't make a billion, but add in Japan and other quite westernized countries to The West; Africa below the Islamic north is well short of a billion, but add in the more impoverished parts of Latin America to make the Third World; the "Second World" is what's left, the old Soviet bloc, and developing countries around the Pacific including the less poor sections of Latin America.

    There is destitution, that is, the kind of real poverty in which food, clothing, and shelter are often lacking, in much of the Third World and pockets of Islam and Greater India; but, although most people elsewhere (the majority even in the West) are in "money anxiety" where they don't feel secure of staying out of destitution and fret about small sums all the time, real destitution is a very small percentage of the population even in China and the Second World nowadays, let alone the West. About 20% of the world is destitute, and we can be dismayed that it isn't 0% given how much surplus wealth is wasted, but historically, 90% of the population was destitute; the way the Third World is now is how the whole planet used to be, until recent centuries. And historically, about 10% of the population was at any given time involved in warfare which historically was conducted in frankly genocidal fashion: this is not how things are anymore.

    There is serious violence in the Third World: genocidal in its brutality in the Rwanda/Burundi/Congo region, and recently in Liberia/Sierra Leone and parts of Uganda (those are in remission, but could flare back up); the Colombia/Venezuela area I mentioned; Kenya, Zimbabwe, and Ivory Coast in Africa, and Central America as well, are not currently in civil strife but could easily go back to it (but note, even in Africa there are lots of countries like Gabon, say, or Togo or Cameroon, which have never had a war with a neighbor, nor any civil strife with large loss of life, since they were created-- even though they are quite poor). Outside of this, there are two pockets of civil strife currently in Greater India (Nepal and Thailand) and one which recently stopped but was so genocidal in its brutality that we have to fear a revival (Sri Lanka). And then (SIGH), there are the conflicts involving Islam, whose violence outnumbers and outweighs all the rest of the world combined (why is that?) You have a jaundiced point of view, because you live in Islam: but try to realize that civil war, or war against neighbors, has become unthinkable in fully half the planet (the West, China, the Second World), and contemplate how remarkable that is.
     
  10. bob x

    bob x New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    0
    You spent several posts arguing that the Zionists were to blame. The only thing more sickening than your blame-shifting is your current denial of having done so.
    "Retribution" is never a justification. Prevention of further violence is a justification. How dedicated is that entire family to continuing the murders, and how much would it take to make them want to stop?
    Goedel's position agrees with ARISTOTLE, as I pointed out already. You are the one who misunderstands both Goedel and Plato.
    When I had less going on in my life and was here on the boards every day, you were down on me for that, too...
    I had to start over with explaining to you that you cannot have a system of arithmetic in which "2+2=5" without abolishing completely any distinction whatsoever between truth and falsity because you showed no sign of understanding, or even acknowledging, the point. It is you who made an outright mistake about the foundations-of-mathematics issue, a very gross one, one which should not be difficult to understand.
    Aristotle, Goedel, Diogenes, and myself all distinguish the necessary from the contingent. You and Plato fail to understand the distinction, Plato treating everything as if it is necessary, you treating everything as if it is contingent. So you make this error of thinking that if Diogenes disagreed with Plato about "cups", he must agree with you about "good"; and the error of thinking that if Goedel disagreed with you about "four", he must agree with Plato about "cups". You are not understanding the questions, let alone anyone's answers about them.
    No it does not. Your depiction of God as a mere person who acts by contingent, arbitrary decrees is a blasphemous trivialization.
    So you assign a different kind of timeline-- big whoop. That changes nothing. Your Abrahamic conception of God is just a person, acting contingently within a time-line, different from us only in being stronger.
    The fact that you cannot grasp the reality of the people around you is profoundly sad, but it does not change the fact that your imaginary God is (inappropriately) modelled after how real people behave.
    Are you trying to hold the US responsible for the places we didn't go?
    The Soviet bloc was despotic, but it did prevent any further outbreaks of warfare in the areas it controlled. One does have to wonder whether Yugoslavia would ever have blown up the way it did if one side or the other had occupied it.
    Or rationality. The basic fact is that no such calamity did occur-- which is actually a recurring theme in history, that people worry a lot about dire things that just don't happen. Robert MacNamara, in case you didn't know, is even more notorious for being a jackass than Curtis Lemay: you might as well be quoting Dubya's opinions as authoritative.
    Not just the US, of course; the world as a whole rallied to defeat the Axis, and the USSR paid the heaviest butcher's bill. We are only arguing about the US role because you somehow want to make us the villains of the story.
    This is so absurd. The world is vastly better than it ever has been in all prior history, and is visibly improving all the time. You remind me of my terminally pessimistic grandfather: he lived in Pittsburgh, so he bought a farm out in rural Pennsylvania as a hidey-hole, because he was certain that the steel mills made Pittsburgh one of the prime targets in the world for aerial bombardment or missiles (this was in the 1930's); then he spent a half-century salting away all his money in gold and silver stashes, because he was sure, every year, that the US currency was about to collapse and throw us all into a repetition of the Great Depression; he lived to be almost ninety, and never ever got to see the Apocalypses that he waited all his life for. You sound like you are going to waste your life the same way, rubbing your hands in anticipation of seeing the whole world go to hell soon-- and never getting the satisfaction.
     
  11. c0de

    c0de Vassal

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Messages:
    2,237
    Likes Received:
    0
    the computer in my room is fried...

    will respond in a few days when the school fixes the comp

    no time 2 do this in a net cafe
     
  12. Muslimwoman

    Muslimwoman Coexistence insha'Allah

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2007
    Messages:
    3,633
    Likes Received:
    43
    The fact that I will not accept life for young gangs in Detriot in 2010 can be compared in any way to the plight of the Palestinian people somehow morphs in your mind to I cannot accept any people throughout history have suffered more than the Palestinian people.

    And don't you teach at a University or college? Wow that is terrifying but explains a lot about American foreign policy!!

    Ah of course, so every Palestinian who voted for Hamas gave no thought to clean water, food, work, regular supplies of electricity and gas, medical treatment, etc ... no, they all only cared about fighting Israel.

    I have explained in at least 2 posts on this thread that the IRA specifically used churches and schools to hide weapons. These are established facts.

    In your utter blind hatred of the Palestinian people you can't even read what is written, you simply see what you want to and ignore everything else. So there is simply no point talking to you about this subject.


    You MUST be anti-semetic c0de, you don't support Israel without question.

    You can continue to say no side has the moral high ground but he will just read it as "I love Palestine and hate Israel", I learnt this from experience ... it's quite bizarre really!!
     
  13. bob x

    bob x New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    0
    Of course they can be compared: why couldn't they be? The result of such a comparison is: in the case of American blacks, the history of oppression is far longer and much more dire; in both cases, some young people act out in senselessly violent ways; but in the Palestinian case, there is a much more widespread attitude of finding such violence acceptable or indeed praiseworthy.
    You asked the rhetorical question about whose plight is like the Palestinians' as if the answer was obviously "Nobody"; well that's just not the case.
    Mathematics, yes.
    That has got to be one of the most bizarre leaps of logic I have seen from you yet. You think that learning about standard deviations and the properties of the arctangent function from someone who doesn't much like Palestinians is going to subliminally influence the students' politics?
    If a party in the UK ran on a platform of clean water, more food, more work, more regular supplies of electricity and gas and medical treatment, and an invasion of Africa and India to reclaim the Empire, how many votes would they get?
    OK, then I stand corrected. I don't pretend to have been much engaged in the ins and outs of the "Troubles"; only to have found that it was easy to find a lot of people in Northern Ireland, decades ago, who already wanted the violence over. I don't have any interest in arguing about the precise level of despicability of the IRA.
    What we were talking about was your analogy between the two situations. I see the beginnings of the peace talks in Northern Ireland as analogous to the period from Camp David to Oslo, the splintering between those who supported Sinn Fein's (at first grudging) acceptance of moves toward peace and the rejectionist Real IRA as analogous to the splintering between Fatah and Hamas-- and the crucial difference as being that the Real IRA has only had marginal support.
    Pretending that the blame for the violence is "50/50" is not being fair; it is being dishonest. Irish analogy: who started the violence between England and Ireland? England did, when Henry II invaded. Yes, there were excuses (that the Celtic Church was undermining the authority of Rome; which is ironic, in view of where the Catholics and Protestants now stand), but Ireland was not violently attacking England. This does not, of course, excuse Irish in later centuries who randomly murdered any English or English-supporting person they could reach; but that came after a long time when the violence was one-sided. Now, who decided on the path of violence in the Israel-Palestine case? The Palestinians did, and all the violence was from their side for a long time, until the balance of power shifted against them. That's the fact of the matter. It does not excuse any Irgunist or Israeli actions which have been similarly terroristic (if "terroristic" is to have any objective meaning), but until the Palestinians acknowledge that they are 100% to blame for choosing violence as the way to resolve the issues, I cannot find any sympathy for their complaints that this turned out badly for them.
     
  14. Muslimwoman

    Muslimwoman Coexistence insha'Allah

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2007
    Messages:
    3,633
    Likes Received:
    43
    It's Ramadan so I'm not going to fight or be rude, I just hope you will search your home this weekend and find wherever it is you lost your humanity for those you do not agree with or like.
     
  15. bob x

    bob x New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    0
    That would be a pleasant change...
    But apparently you are incapable of it.
    I scarcely consider it "inhuman" to want murderously violent people kept under tight confinement. The keys to the Palestinians' prison are in their own hands, always have been.
     
  16. c0de

    c0de Vassal

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Messages:
    2,237
    Likes Received:
    0
    .


    @ Bob

    I've had my response wiped out twice by this computer. But this is given me the opportunity to boil down your argument to its very foundations, and it's pretty easy to destroy it.



    WWII


    Your entire argument on this issue is circular, based on this fallacy which you are providing as its own proof:

    Eisenhower and MacArthur seemed to know less than you then, since they both believed Japan did not need to be nukes to surrender. The quote of Eisenhower was made right at the end of the chronology, so your "Japanese peace feeler" argument is null and void.

    You know who else shares their opinion? Modern Japanese scholars, who consider the greatest factor of Japanese surrender to be the Soviet entry into the war. They say (and many American scholars agree) that the US nuked Japan as a show of force to the Soviets.

    So your case is weak, very weak.




    Mid East


    That is an outright lie and you are now guilty of defamation.

    Show me one post where I said the Arabs are not to be blamed for targetting Jewish civillians. All I said (and Lord Curzon and many other prominent people on the commision agreed with me) that the Zionists began the series of problems that led to the mobs. But I never excused the targetting of Jewish civillians, like you are excusing the nuclear bombings.




    Philosophical Foundations


    "Gödel's platonism postulates a special kind of mathematical intuition that lets us perceive mathematical objects directly."

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics

    Clear enough? Or should I post Goedel's own words again which reaffirm his platonist position?

    You keep insulting me without attempting to understand what it is I am actually arguing. I have challenged the fundamental basis of all physics and philosophy on logical grounds. Tell me, why is motion incompatible with being (existing)? Do you know why? Because in order to explain these two together, you need to invent concepts like "absolute time" and "absolute space" and "force" all these ideas which have been destroyed recently. You are trying to defend classical physics and platonist views of mathematics when I am telling you that you are defending absurdities.

    What I say is that we should look again at the fundamental assumption of all philosophy: cogito ergo sum. If we take this out, then there is no "problem" logically speaking at all. If I have enough time, I might start a threat in the philosophy section on Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, which was the last attempt to provide a coherent philosophical/physical view of reality in which you can clearly say that we "exist" and "motion" is not a problem. But that system is no more. You are hanging on to relics.

    Also, you keep accusing me of misunderstanding the foundations of mathematics issue, saying that what I am proposing cancels out truth/falsity. But you have not yet realized >that is my whole thesis< That is the only reason I brought up the issue, to show that they are both arbitrary. Instead of realizing that, you keep lecturing me on why I am not allowed to say that as it destroys the foundation of everything. But that is percisely the point.



    Miscelleaneous


    All this shows is that you have clearly misunderstood the person you are dealing with here. Don't you know that I am an all out agent of globalization? I am no romantic mountain dweller either, but a city kid, through and through. Also, unlike your grandfather, I do not expect the end of civillization within my lifetime. We might have as much as another 500 years. But I've been wrong before. My whole point on that issue, which you are simply ignoring, is that this is a house of cards. One wrong push of a button can END it all. And this, is a fact.

    I also reject the idea that the world is "better" simply because its current material betterness is a direct result of exploitation. If you kill someone and take their money, you are richer, yes... but you ain't "better".
     
  17. Dogbrain

    Dogbrain New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    Messages:
    813
    Likes Received:
    0
    Could you point me to the professional journals wherein this is reported? I can follow the math if given enough time. Thank you.
     
  18. bob x

    bob x New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    0
    He is referring to Einstein's results in 1905 (to him, apparently that is "recently") which did not, however, conclude anything remotely like "motion is incompatible with being".
     
  19. c0de

    c0de Vassal

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Messages:
    2,237
    Likes Received:
    0
    .
    No, actually, I am referring to a question that was asked by the pre-socratics, and has yet to be answered. I only came across it though Oswald Spengler, the pre-WWII German philosopher (who, by the way published his seminal work well after 1905, and was quite familiar with Quantum Theory.) This guy practically formalized the use of the word "civilization" as we use it today, an incredible mind.

    "It is the unsolved and unsolvable problem of the Eleatics - being (or thinking) and motion are incompatible... In classical science the Eleatics, declining to admit the necessity of thinking of Nature as motion, set up against it the logical view that thinking is a being, with the corollary that known and extended are identical and knowledge and becoming therefore irreconcilable. Their criticisms have not been, and cannot be, refuted." p194-196 The Decline of the West (Abridged) Vintage Books

    "Western physics is by its inward form dogmatic... its content is the dogma of force, which is identical with space and distance... That this "force" or "energy" is really a numen stiffened into a concept (and in nowise the result of scientific experience) is shown by the often overlooked fact that the basic principle known as the First Law of Thermodynamics says nothing whatever about the nature of energy, and it is properly an incorrect (though psychologically most significant) assumption that the idea of the "Conservation of Energy" is part of it... The force dogma is the one and only theme of Faustian physics..."
    ibid, 209-210

    "Every physics, as I have shown, must break down over the motion-problem... Since Newton, the assumption of constant mass - the counterpart of constant force - has had uncontested validity. But the Quantum theory of Planck, and the conclusions of Niels Bohr... have destroyed this assumption. Every self-contained system possesses... an energy of radiant heat... and therefore cannot be represented purely by the concept of mass. For if mass is defined by living energy it is ipso facto no longer constant with reference to thermodynamic state..." ibid, 213-215


    In the footnotes, I also found a quote by C.F. von Weizsacker:

    "The metaphysical hope of the classical physicists to obtain a hold over 'Being in itself' collapses. The physics of today force the physicist to consideration of himself as subject."
    (1948)
     
  20. bob x

    bob x New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    0
    Obviously you are lying, since you have denied that anybody was getting responses repeatedly eaten by the computer gods during that period...
    While MacArthur had his egotistic reasons for saying what he said at the time you quoted him (and had to change his position later), Eisenhower's opinion I am not going to disrespect. He was among the more thoughtful of our military leaders (unlike such idiots as LeMay and McNamara, whom you quote as if you were authorities); also, he was more aware than most that The Bomb was not just "another bomb, but bigger" but really represented something new: during the run-up to D-Day, specialists were trying to adapt chem-suits to filter out fallout as well, and be readily washable since radioisotopes clinging to the cloth would continue to do damage, and were briefing officers like Eisenhower on how bad it would be if Germany could manage even a weak "dirty bomb" spreading fallout. But he was basing his assessment of Japanese willingness to surrender on what he was seeing in Germany, where official pronouncements that "We will fight to the death!" were belied by the eagerness of rank-and-file German soldiers to end the fighting (particularly, to surrender to the West rather than end up facing the Soviets), which was not at all like what was happening in the Pacific.

    However, it was very far-sighted of him to say that he was afraid the US would forever be tarred as "the country that used that awful thing". I also have to respect Kurt Vonnegut's viewpoint: he was a POW in Dresden during that fire-bombing (for which little strategic excuse has ever been offered), and regarded it as inexcusable; but about Hiroshima he said he had to defer to his friend William Saroyan, who had been in training for the invasion of Honshu at the time and is certain that Hiroshima saved his life-- about Nagasaki, however, Vonnegut considers it a late hit, pure vengeful anger with no justification.

    I have not been, as you keep assuming, trying to argue that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unambiguously right; I have been disputing your view that you know them to be unambiguously wrong. Once massive violence is set in motion, all decisions are befogged both by emotional irrationalism, and by uncertainty about the enemy's intentions (Nimitz, MacArthur, and Eisenhower, each in his own way, misread what the situation in Japan in 1945 was really like, but who can blame them? how would any outsider have been able to know?) And so, arguing about the moral correctness of this or that decision in the context of mass violence is somewhat pointless, as lots of decisions will be made badly. The primary blame, ALWAYS, must lie on the shoulders of the side who decided to initiate the mass violence in the first place.
    ...who are especially anxious not to face the fact that Japan STARTED THE GODDAMN WAR and that this was a shameful thing to do.
    This would not be an absurd theory on the face of it, but it fails because we do have an abundance of documentation about what the American commanders were really thinking about (as you keep quoting). We did not need to prove to the Soviets that we had a working bomb, because they already knew that, and we knew that they knew that because we had already told them so. Truman informed Stalin of the success of the "Trinity" test once it was confirmed, and notes, "He did not react much, and I got the distinct impression that he had already heard it." We were dismayed when we eventually learned just how thoroughly the Soviets had penetrated Los Alamos, but of course we knew that espionage was among their talents, and it was hardly a surprise to us that "Trinity" had been observed and reported.
    Curzon and the Palin commissioners were "Orientalists" who "liked" Muslims because Muslims are so easily dominated and manipulated, and were full of the kind of "Christian gentleman" anti-Semitism that was common at the time; they were guilty of fomenting the riots themselves, and this is why the British government fired them. Yet you want to cite them as "authorities": you have a terrible habit of relying on "argument from authority" which is especially bad when you cite people who are either stupid or downright evil as if their opinions should count for something.

    Up the coast from me a ways is a state park called "China Camp": so-called because it was a village for Asian fisherman (by no means all Chinese, but white people at the time did not make subtle distinctions) looking for a place where "yellow people" were allowed to live (the countryside was as segregated as the cities), from the 19th century until December 1941-- when a mob burned it all down and chased everyone away. The sheriff's department was asked for help, but did nothing-- unless, as some versions have it, a few of the deputies were actually participants in the mob. At least no-one was murdered, though some were injured and the whole incident was very ugly; the state did pay everyone for the destroyed buildings and the real estate where they feared to live anymore, which is how it is public land now. You citing Curzon is as if you cited the sheriff about the China Camp riot, saying "It was those slant-eyed Japs caused all the trouble"; you would not accept that kind of blame-shift in any context but Palestine.
    The use of the word "platonist" is very loose here. Some things are necessary; some things are contingent. In a mathematical system, you can only say "2+2=5" is true if you also say "2+2=5" is false, and "2+2=4" is true, and false, and every other statement is true, and false; if you have any distinction at all between "true" and "false", then "2+2=4" is true, and "2+2=5" is false. That is necessary. The properties of cups are contingent. You think that because Goedel accepts the existence of anything necessary, he must also have agreed with Plato that EVERYTHING is necessary, which he did not; you quote Diogenes arguing with Plato about cups as if it had the slightest relevance here, which it does not.
    It's not. The things that you are saying are so exasperatingly ignorant that I have had difficulty replying at all.
    No. You don't need any of those.
    No. I'm not.
    Kant was a dreadful bore, and I would not call him "coherent" either.
    You have the choice of making everything true and false at the same time, but as Aristotle said, "Then there is no reason why I should continue with a carrot." You say things which appear to be senseless and stupid, and then when it is pointed out that you are being senseless and stupid, you go, "AHA! You see? That's my whole point! I can be as senseless as I want, and you can't make me stop, BUWAHAHAHAHA!" Well, of course I can't stop you, but it does make continued dialogue seem rather pointless.
    No. Truth and falsity are not arbitrary. You can ignore the whole distinction, in which case there is no point in talking; or, if you want to distinguish true and false, in any manner, there are certain non-arbitrary consequences.
    It certainly does not appear so.
    You act as if this is all a zero-sum game. We have more cars and laptops and whatever than Africans-- but not because we stole cars from the Africans; we created them, when nobody at all, including the Africans, had them before.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page