When Mitt Romney becomes president.... *FLUX THREAD!*

[SMiLE Brian]

Patriotism and nationalism are dangerous, dangerous thought processes. Once you get into uber-nationalism you end up with sh*t like the Third Reich...

Or World War One, a war that never needed to happen and destroyed Europe as the center for world powers.

[Jason]

Hence why Europe is flushing itself down the toilet with the EU...

[Paulos]

Hence why Europe is flushing itself down the toilet with the EU...

Well the Germans, Norwegians and a few others are doing just fine, it's the rest of Europe that is somewhat f***ed! It was claimed today that UK is finally out of recession, don't believe it myself.

[Jason]

Germany won't be doing fine for long considering just how much Merkel is trying to prop up the system. Norway is doing fine because...well, they're not in the EU and more power to them for it!

I don't much read the British press besides The Guardian and The Daily Mail; are so-called "economists" warning that if voters go Conservative in the next election that there will be a "double-dip"? That's the same sh*t we're getting here in the United States, although someone needs to tell Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman that the first fucking recession never ended!

[Jason]

http://freebeacon.com/u-n-human-rights-council-calls-for-boycott-of-u-s-companies/

The United Nations Human Rights Council calls for a boycott of American corporations that do business with the Zionist state of "Israel". Can we just kill two birds with one stone? Get the hell out of the United Nations and stop sending billions in foreign aid everywhere, including Israel?

[hypehat]

Meanwhile...

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/obama-ayn-rand-is-for-misunderstood-teenagers?ref=fpb

RE: UK economy, it would appear that hosting the Olympics is the way to get out of recession. I heartily recommend it to everyone. 

RE: troops, I know a fair few people who went into the army when I was at school. Some of them were nuts. Some of them just didn't have any thing else to do, so I'm sort of wary of condemning them rather than the machinery that sends them there.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

http://freebeacon.com/u-n-human-rights-council-calls-for-boycott-of-u-s-companies/

The United Nations Human Rights Council calls for a boycott of American corporations that do business with the Zionist state of "Israel". Can we just kill two birds with one stone? Get the hell out of the United Nations and stop sending billions in foreign aid everywhere, including Israel?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you simply don't know how monstrous this statement really is:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/economics-blog/2012/may/30/foreign-aid-works-saves-lives

[rab2591]

RE: troops, I know a fair few people who went into the army when I was at school. Some of them were nuts. Some of them just didn't have any thing else to do, so I'm sort of wary of condemning them rather than the machinery that sends them there.

Very much agreed. Recruiters came to our school every week and stood around during lunch going to different tables, talking, signing people up. I swear I remember the army and navy advertising on the school news. Kids these days are completely bombarded with recruitment tactics. So they are, to an extent, duped into signing up. You really can't blame the students-turned-soldiers.

I'm wary of calling these people 'murderers' when most are just unassuming young kids who were, after years of shitty public education, conned into the machine.

[Jason]

http://freebeacon.com/u-n-human-rights-council-calls-for-boycott-of-u-s-companies/

The United Nations Human Rights Council calls for a boycott of American corporations that do business with the Zionist state of "Israel". Can we just kill two birds with one stone? Get the hell out of the United Nations and stop sending billions in foreign aid everywhere, including Israel?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you simply don't know how monstrous this statement really is:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/economics-blog/2012/may/30/foreign-aid-works-saves-lives

The rest of the world doesn't provide endless welfare to the United States. Why do we have the moral obligation to do so? Let the beauty of Darwinism work its magic.

[Jason]

RE: troops, I know a fair few people who went into the army when I was at school. Some of them were nuts. Some of them just didn't have any thing else to do, so I'm sort of wary of condemning them rather than the machinery that sends them there.

Very much agreed. Recruiters came to our school every week and stood around during lunch going to different tables, talking, signing people up. I swear I remember the army and navy advertising on the school news. Kids these days are completely bombarded with recruitment tactics. So they are, to an extent, duped into signing up. You really can't blame the students-turned-soldiers.

I'm wary of calling these people 'murderers' when most are just unassuming young kids who were, after years of sh*tty public education, conned into the machine.

Those who don't think for themselves or are too ignorant to think for themselves deserve whatever happens to them, including my condemnation of their actions as state-sanctioned murderers.

[Jason]

Meanwhile...

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/obama-ayn-rand-is-for-misunderstood-teenagers?ref=fpb

I'd take that son of a bitch's words at face value...he doesn't give a damn about anyone but himself. Oh, sh*t...he sounds like a Republican. 

[Chocolate Shake Man]

The rest of the world doesn't provide endless welfare to the United States.

Of course they do. From the end of WWII a great deal of the world, including most of Europe and Japan were reconstituted by the US under US economic control. In the Cold War years, the United States controlled 50% of the world's resources and continue to control about a quarter. A great deal of American wealth has been generated precisely by pillaging the rest of the world, toppling democratic governments in favor of totalitarian regimes precisely because they were friendly to US investment, often devastating the population of the country in the process. Putting aside the question of foreign aid, the United States should be paying reparations through the nose to all the countries that they've torn apart over the years. But controlling the world's resources by force constituted an enormous welfare net. The difference is, instead of the Third World asking the First World for help, the United States simply accumulated their wealth from outside countries by force.

Why do we have the moral obligation to do so?

Because it recognizes something about humanity that is fundamentally true - we are inextricably bound to and dependent on others for our survival. Self-reliance leads to extinction. Those who are born with considerable amounts of privilege fail to grasp what is easily recognizable and understood just about anywhere that doesn't have that kind of privilege, which is why this absurd libertarian movement is such a hit in the United States and why a name like Ayn Rand is  barely recognizable outside of North America and England.

Let the beauty of Darwinism work its magic.

Darwin doesn't apply in this case and this is just another poor and flagrantly inaccurate attempt to pretend that what is happening in the world is happening organically. It's sad that patent nonsense like this is operates as an "excuse" for making millions of kids die. Utterly shameful.

[hypehat]

The rest of the world doesn't provide endless welfare to the United States.

Of course they do. From the end of WWII a great deal of the world, including most of Europe and Japan were reconstituted by the US under US economic control. In the Cold War years, the United States controlled 50% of the world's resources and continue to control about a quarter. A great deal of American wealth has been generated precisely by pillaging the rest of the world, toppling democratic governments in favor of totalitarian regimes precisely because they were friendly to US investment, often devastating the population of the country in the process. Putting aside the question of foreign aid, the United States should be paying reparations through the nose to all the countries that they've torn apart over the years. But controlling the world's resources by force constituted an enormous welfare net. The difference is, instead of the Third World asking the First World for help, the United States simply accumulated their wealth from outside countries by force.

Why do we have the moral obligation to do so?

Because it recognizes something about humanity that is fundamentally true - we are inextricably bound to and dependent on others for our survival. Self-reliance leads to extinction. Those who are born with considerable amounts of privilege fail to grasp what is easily recognizable and understood just about anywhere that doesn't have that kind of privilege, which is why this absurd libertarian movement is such a hit in the United States and why a name like Ayn Rand is  barely recognizable outside of North America and England.

Let the beauty of Darwinism work its magic.

Darwin doesn't apply in this case and this is just another poor and flagrantly inaccurate attempt to pretend that what is happening in the world is happening organically. It's sad that patent nonsense like this is operates as an "excuse" for making millions of kids die. Utterly shameful.

This = otm. With the caveat that as an (English) English Literature student I'd never heard of Ayn Rand until I started reading about American libertarianism on the net....

Quite frankly, that your reaction to other people suffering is 'don't care, social darwinism' is so bloody-minded I'd almost think you were trolling.

[Jason]

I'd say that those reparations have been paid by the endless foreign aid programs dozens of times over. I'm not a fan of American foreign policy either, mind. It created more enemies than the country knows how to deal with.

This is why I'm against taxation. The American people pay the penalty for the sins of the government. That's wrong. So yes, from my perspective it's not my problem. I didn't keep slaves, I didn't kill anyone, I didn't overthrow governments, and I didn't pillage resources. We're living in a world of false entitlements. These people don't deserve MY tax dollars. They deserve the tax dollars of those who participated in their destruction.

[Dunderhead]

That bullshit about "we have to pay hundreds of billions of dollars in poorly conceived welfare programs because it's moral" sucks, it actually isn't moral. It's a waste of money, as discussed in this thread multiple times, like Social Security, which actually has a negative return.
Government entitlement spending isn't charity, I'm sick to death of hearing the argument. What makes it so moral? This is the one question that nobody can answer, but you guys act like the answer is just obvious and you don't have to even think about it. When it comes to the actual *science*, these welfare programs suck money out of the economy and create measurably worse outcomes than the market! So what makes this stuff so moral? Of course you can't say God provides your morality. So what provides it? "Common Sense"? That's not worth a damn, common sense isn't provable or universal. So why is your morality superior, why should we do what you say just because you insist that it's moral, without having any reasoning behind what makes it moral? It's all a big joke.

And don't even get me started on post-colonialism, the west is entitled, we owe everyone everything, white people have it so well crybaby theory bullshit.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

OK, who's going to step up and attempt to explain morality to someone who either is incapable of understanding it or is too big a fan or nihilism, or just prefers not to bother?

Not me.....

[Dunderhead]

I actually think you're the one who doesn't understand what morality is. You won't explain it because you can't, because you just reduce morality down to some nebulous feeling of "helping people is good", but what justifies your sense of morality. How do we know that moral behavior is objectively good? Read your Kant, or your Fichte, or your Schiller. The topic isn't just some common sensical smug "my morality is right, if you don't agree with it you're a nihilist", Kant pretty much obliterates the entire sense of morality that your leaning on, and you have to deal with that.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

One question:

why do you rely on the writings of others to form your sense of morality (or to defend your lack of it)? You do not impress by tossing off who you've read. I don't do that because in the end I'm only answerable to what I do with whatever knowledge I've taken in.....

Better question might be: what is immoral? What is immoral about spreading death and destruction across the globe? Why is it immoral to speak of morality (itself just a word) while spreading immorality as if it's to be taken for granted? .... We can argue about whether moral behavior is objectively good, and while we're doing so, there is rash immorality raining down all around us.... Since this is the case, I"ll grasp onto a little morality no matter what armchair philosophers might muse about while doing absolutely nothing.

[Dunderhead]

Why do people try and pawn things off as if they can just understand the world without reading anything? You sit around and bitch about how people who read Ayn Rand are losers but when someone is trying to talk about real moral philosophy written by a real philosopher, than all of a sudden it becomes "I don't need to read, whoever learned anything by reading a book?"
If you want to talk about moral philosophy, talking about the most important moral philosopher of the last 250 years maybe has some value.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

I didn't say that. I've read them all. I used to be a big Nietzsche guy and have spent many a year educating myself philosophy-wise..... But I tell you this: no philosopher/writer in the world will fill a hole for you if the hole is simply too deep.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I'd say that those reparations have been paid by the endless foreign aid programs dozens of times over.

Oh yeah? Give me an example.

I'm not a fan of American foreign policy either, mind. It created more enemies than the country knows how to deal with.

What a selfish way of looking at it - it's bad because of the harm it has created for us? Seems to me the scale of violence has been massively tipped to affect countries that are not the United States.

This is why I'm against taxation. The American people pay the penalty for the sins of the government. That's wrong. So yes, from my perspective it's not my problem. I didn't keep slaves, I didn't kill anyone, I didn't overthrow governments, and I didn't pillage resources. We're living in a world of false entitlements. These people don't deserve MY tax dollars. They deserve the tax dollars of those who participated in their destruction.

Well, it's not like you're doing anything about it, are you? You realize you're not living in a totalitarian government, right? You know there's a whole history of American government policy being effectively shaped as a result of very hard work done by ordinary citizens? If you don't like how your money is spent you can damn well do something about it other than just make complaints on the web.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Why do people try and pawn things off as if they can just understand the world without reading anything? You sit around and bitch about how people who read Ayn Rand are losers but when someone is trying to talk about real moral philosophy written by a real philosopher, than all of a sudden it becomes "I don't need to read, whoever learned anything by reading a book?"
If you want to talk about moral philosophy, talking about the most important moral philosopher of the last 250 years maybe has some value.

What I"m really and simply saying is regarding that the writings of any philosopher: their writings are only doing some of the work. Philosophy as well as literature/poetry ANY art form is a living entity (or something like that) a great novel should perhaps alter the way you view your own reality and that of the world and perhaps awaken you to new ways to experience and process life. Same with philosophy. If all you do is hole yourself up and read, you're missing the point....

And I never said people who read Ayn Rand are losers. The "semen stained copy of The Fountainhead" line was not mine......

[Chocolate Shake Man]

That bullsh*t about "we have to pay hundreds of billions of dollars in poorly conceived welfare programs because it's moral" sucks, it actually isn't moral. It's a waste of money,

Morality has nothing to do with whether you win or lose money. But even if we were to accept your meaningless non sequitor, it's still not only absurd but also despicable. As that article I posted noted (and true to fashion, you and TRBB have ignored it outright), it typically amounts to spending 27 dollars a year to, among many other things, save the lives of 4.4 million children. If this constitutes a "waste" then you are simply so off the spectrum in terms of sanity then even entering into a discussion with you is a hopeless endeavour. Again, though, I will simply take it for granted that you don't understand the real implications what you are saying.



 

as discussed in this thread multiple times, like Social Security, which actually has a negative return.

In fact, you've discussed it but no one is convinced by what you're saying, and given your ridiculous statement above, there's a good reason for it.

Government entitlement spending isn't charity,

You think that wanting children under five to live is a case of entitlement? Seriously?

And don't even get me started on post-colonialism, the west is entitled, we owe everyone everything, white people have it so well crybaby theory bullsh*t.

Boy, if that's you getting started, I can't wait to see the terribly nuanced argument you bring to bear on this discussion. I like the tactic you are using though - as if you have some really great point to undermine the post-colonial argument but you are so indignant to the concept you can't even bring yourself to talk about it. What a showy and splashy and ultimately meaningless act of empty posturing. Why don't you actually respond to a point instead of hiding your non-answer behind a curtain of smugness?

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Kant pretty much obliterates the entire sense of morality that your leaning on, and you have to deal with that.

As he does your own, since for Kant, it is as rational beings that people are able to think as social beings, and not just as isolated individuals with their one-sided desires and goals. For him, it is the faculty of reason that most plausibly connects human beings with each other, and which turns a merely natural society of competing individuals into a human community with common ground.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

I don't care if Kant obliterates my sense of morality (once again we''re leaning too heavily on a single term anyhow) ..... Where's Kant today??? What's the latest from him?? ....... I can respect and admire his work but am free to create my own philosophy to live by as well.... Hey, the Nazi's would toss babies into gas chambers all day and then go sit with their wives at the Opera and cry genuine tears of emotion as they were caught up in the drama. Like I said, there's nothing in this world that will make up for a lack of empathy.... Oh, and what did these guys all say at Nuremberg? "Hey, I was just taking orders"!!!! .... So, when the sh*t really does come down: there's always someone else to blame.....