Sanctions and Genocide

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 7:05 pm

koan wrote: I've got a Monday deadline to meet.

Your charge of anti-semitism...that is directed at me, is it not? is a pretty hefty charge considering I posted a history of the conflict from the UN site. I would appreciate some just cause shown for your slander of me...if it was directed at me. Perhaps you think the UN is the guilty party.

I consider them to be a good source in the matter. Please show me the reasons you don't.

If I don't respond quickly it is just that little deadline issue.

lets be clear here. the text you posted regarding the UN partition plan is - rather dramatically - lacking a few small details. such as the fact that *the palestinian arabs to which it was proposed rejected it* as well as all of the neighboring muslim and arab states - while israel accepted it. it was only after this rejection of a peaceful resolution that israel was forced to take matters into their own hands and declare their independence.

your predisposition to exclude such minor facts is the basis for my speculation.

jewish "ownership" of the land of israel dates back 3200 years. the palestinian arabs at best can trace their history back to the same region to the arab caliphates, about 1400 years ago.

so why don't we work from that simplistic basis, shall we? islam and the muslims are newcomers to the region, yet now they demand the jews leave their homeland because it is an affront to islam.

well i say, bugger off. the israelis took back their historical homeland.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 11:58 pm

anastrophe wrote: lets be clear here. the text you posted regarding the UN partition plan is - rather dramatically - lacking a few small details. such as the fact that *the palestinian arabs to which it was proposed rejected it* as well as all of the neighboring muslim and arab states - while israel accepted it. it was only after this rejection of a peaceful resolution that israel was forced to take matters into their own hands and declare their independence.

your predisposition to exclude such minor facts is the basis for my speculation.

jewish "ownership" of the land of israel dates back 3200 years. the palestinian arabs at best can trace their history back to the same region to the arab caliphates, about 1400 years ago.

so why don't we work from that simplistic basis, shall we? islam and the muslims are newcomers to the region, yet now they demand the jews leave their homeland because it is an affront to islam.

well i say, bugger off. the israelis took back their historical homeland.

gosh I hate to quote your post thereby repeating it. Please post proof.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 11:58 pm

koan wrote: gosh I hate to quote your post thereby repeating it. Please post proof.

what do you mean, proof? you deny recorded history now?

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 12:00 am

or perhaps you meant proof that the israeli state accepted the UN partition, while the palestinians and others rejected it.

i can only guess which of the issues you were demanding proof of.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 12:02 am

or perhaps you're suggesting that islam predates judaism.

as i said, i can only guess when one seemingly revels in obscurantism.

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 12:41 pm

This is my point:

I started a thread to discuss warfare in terms of what might not kill civilians. I have never claimed to have the answer. Ignoring accusations of my having an alternative motive and being able to predict how the responses to my thread might twist and turn inside the thread, I am asking for a legitimate discussion global policies. I question the introduction of sanctions as a way of effectively making political change.

You have not, in my mind, been proactive in pursuing a discussion. Your posts are littered with logical fallacies. I'm asking you to answer the initial post in a constructive response that offers a supported opinion. Otherwise state your unsupported opinion as what it is. Personal and not factual.

Can we agree that reasonable discussion should be a) free of logical fallacy and b) employ critical thinking?

I shall work on formulating a structured presentation of my own but have a few projects that require immediate attention, so I might be a while in posting it.

If you hold contempt for pacificts (I shall assume this label covers supporters of non violent action) as you stated in another thread then say it simply and let's not waste our time. I believe in non violent action. Not because I hate the US. Just because I believe in non violent action above violent action. If you believe that non violence would be better than violence then it is in both of our interests to explore whether or not it works and how it could be improved. If you think dropping bombs is preferable then there is nothing constructive to be gained and you've said your bit.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 12:54 pm

koan wrote: gosh I hate to quote your post thereby repeating it. Please post proof.

i ask again what you were requesting proof of.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 1:14 pm

koan wrote:

You have not, in my mind, been proactive in pursuing a discussion. Your posts are littered with logical fallacies. I'm asking you to answer the initial post in a constructive response that offers a supported opinion. Otherwise state your unsupported opinion as what it is. Personal and not factual.

Can we agree that reasonable discussion should be a) free of logical fallacy and b) employ critical thinking?

this is a lovely little bit of dodge to toss out, particularly absent the most modest of examples.

can we agree that reasonable discussion should be a) free of unsupported claims, and b) free of rhetorical dodges, like asking for 'proof' in the most obscure of ways, then ignoring clarification?

I shall work on formulating a structured presentation of my own but have a few projects that require immediate attention, so I might be a while in posting it.

we look forward to your structured presentation. meanwhile, perhaps others will choose to discuss matters conversationally, as that is how things tend to be done on forums. or perhaps you should post it in spot's debating club, where you'll get the intellectual and structural rigor that seems to be paramount to you?

If you hold contempt for pacificts (I shall assume this label covers supporters of non violent action)

i hold contempt for Pacifists with a capital P. if i failed to capitalize it in the other post, that was in error of habit, as i'm lazy with case. either way, your assumption is wrong.

as you stated in another thread then say it simply and let's not waste our time. I believe in non violent action. Not because I hate the US. Just because I believe in non violent action above violent action. If you believe that non violence would be better than violence then it is in both of our interests to explore whether or not it works and how it could be improved. If you think dropping bombs is preferable then there is nothing constructive to be gained and you've said your bit.

gosh, well there you have it. conversation and dialogue is not necessary. koan will tell us the only choices available in the discourse. why do you even bother with the pretense of posting in the general forums? i think the Journal area would be far more to your liking - none of those annoying opinions to get in the way of your ideological cant.

i am emphatically in favor of any non-violent action that can produce positive results. contrarily, if the non-violent actions either a) fail to produce results or more commonly, b) fail to prevent genocide, then i will err on the side of violence in self-defense. can a nation defend "itself"? you bet.

a Pacificist with a capital P would not have used military force of any kind to stop the advance of the nazis in world war II. yes, i realize that "nazi" and "hitler" are canonical examples of the extremes of human violent behavior, and are terribly overused...."overused" if you believe that the struggle in the 1940's was 'way long ago' and not of consequence any more. but the reality is that we know what the nazis were capable of, because they did it, and left behind ample evidence. nothing short of military action would have stopped hitler. this is incontrovertible. to suggest otherwise is to spit on the graves of millions of soldiers and civilians who died in the wake of the nazi advance.

in the face of unbridled aggression, what will stop it?

sanctions - in limited form, possibly of value; rather depends upon how aggressive the actions are.

appeasement - demonstrably a failed notion.

non-violent demonstrations - lends a nice warm feeling to the participants; accomplishes little that isn't self-referential (see "nice warm feeling")

diplomacy - possibly of value; requires cooperation, which is often absent with aggressors.

accords - possibly of value; requires cooperation, which is often absent with aggressors.

treaties - possibly of value; requires cooperation, which is often absent with aggressors.

perhaps part of the problem here has to do with whether we are talking about sanctions in order to prevent war, or sanctions in order to stop an existing state of war. the latter is pointless in my opinion. the former may work. the problem is, that limiting trade tends to limit commerce; limiting commerce limits resources; limiting resources lends to disease, famine, despair, and possibly greater aggression.

just a few thoughts for you. hope you don't mind some more non-constructive discussion.

koan · Post by **koan** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 9:09 pm

see, aside from your snide remarks, that was constructive. Thank you. God, I went through a lot to get you there. Still busy. Just passing through.

Of course I'm interested in everyone's opinions or I would have called this "Hey anastrophe, why do you think I want to talk about Sanctions?" Now that we're over that part, perhaps we proceed.

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:36 pm

anastrophe wrote: again, utopianism is pretty useless when we're talking about current affairs.
No, you are talking about current affairs. I am trying to be courteous by responding to your variation.

I am talking about non violent approaches to global conflict. I’m talking about ways to reduce casualties (collateral damage for those into the newspeak), you are talking of reasons to justify it. Our goals have been quite different from the start of your entry in this thread.

I was preparing a full summary from 1200 BC to now but realized I am just feeding your fire. Here's a way to put it more appropriately.

Your arguments in the specific situation of Israel and Palestine would result in the following also being true:

The Indigenous Peoples unite and declare their right to have a their own sovereign country in the US. They were there first. The UN decides that this homeless group of people should be granted land which includes Washington and about 40% of the USA. The US does not agree with this bit of legislation but the rest of the world votes to give it to them. Then the new country of Indigrael has a battle winning a few more bits of land. The USA develops a group ready to fight back to reclaim their country in protest of the ruling that gave away their land. The country of Indigrael is given bombs, and weaponry to hold the USA at bay. Both start attacking each other the moment the declaration of independence is signed. The war goes on for over 60 years. Who is right? Who is defending against whom?

Wow. You’ve won me over. I think the Native Peoples should be given a sovereign country that includes large portions of Canada and the USA. What say we write to our respective governments? The only difference is: the Natives were here first, whereas Jerusalem was conquered by the Jews around 1200 BC. Note the word conquered. They stole it too.

Now can we talk about non violence?

Let me start:

When discussing a way to cure the ills of the world there is no right or wrong, only ideas. All practical political systems are based on a philosophical ideology. How that ideology is applied changes from time to time and place to place. The world is not static and cannot be governed by static ideas. The true testing of a political philosophy requires so much time that it is near impossible to know if the idea works. The requirement of hardship to change any existing systems is usually too taxing for the population to endure the change to completion. Do we then say “just give up? Is it impractical to try and change anything? Reality suggests that change will happen regardless of trying or not and the best way to affect positive change is to invest in a philosophy even if it never fully sees the light of day.

Anyone so simplistic to say “if it doesn’t work right now it is worthless is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Don't dismiss proactive thinking as "utopianism" if no one dreamed of a better world we would be still swinging from trees. I'm not about to assume that humanity has reached it's grandest moment and the rest is just decline.

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 11:56 am

I've already mentioned the wikipedia page on Nonviolence as a good starting place.

From that, a reference to Gene Sharp can found.

In Sharp's view all effective power structures have systems by which they encourage or extract obedience from their subjects. States have particularly complex systems for keeping subjects obedient. These systems include specific institutions (police, courts, regulatory bodies) but may also involve cultural dimensions that inspire obedience by implying that power is monolithic (the god cult of the Egyptian pharaohs, the dignity of the office of the President, moral or ethical norms and taboos). Through these systems, subjects are presented with a system of sanctions (imprisonment, fines, ostracization) and rewards (titles, wealth, fame) which influence the extent of their obedience.

This is ultimately related to nonviolent resistance because it is supposed to provide subjects with a window of opportunity for affecting change within a state. Sharp argues that if the subjects of a particular state recognize that they are the source of the state's power they can refuse their obedience and their leader(s) will be left without power.

Of course the concept and application are often a matter of interpretation. I find it interesting that the word sanctions is used to describe the punishment system of oppressive bodies. Not conclusive, just an interesting coincidence. I'm still looking for all the specific examples, outside of India, of how non violent resistance has been successful. Apparently it has helped over a billion people.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 3:42 pm

koan wrote: I was preparing a full summary from 1200 BC to now but realized I am just feeding your fire. Here's a way to put it more appropriately.
this history goes back much further than that. choosing any arbitrary time and saying 'that's how it was, so that's how it should be' is fruitless. deal with the present. israel is a sovereign state. they have a right to defend themselves. they're at peace with their two largest neighbors, and have been for decades. this argument that hezbollah isn't the aggressor is nonsense. but i digress.

Your arguments in the specific situation of Israel and Palestine would result in the following also being true:

The Indigenous Peoples unite and declare their right to have a their own sovereign country in the US. They were there first. The UN decides that this homeless group of people should be granted land which includes Washington and about 40% of the USA. The US does not agree with this bit of legislation but the rest of the world votes to give it to them. Then the new country of Indigrael has a battle winning a few more bits of land. The USA develops a group ready to fight back to reclaim their country in protest of the ruling that gave away their land. The country of Indigrael is given bombs, and weaponry to hold the USA at bay. Both start attacking each other the moment the declaration of independence is signed. The war goes on for over 60 years. Who is right? Who is defending against whom?

Wow. You’ve won me over. I think the Native Peoples should be given a sovereign country that includes large portions of Canada and the USA. What say we write to our respective governments? The only difference is: the Natives were here first, whereas Jerusalem was conquered by the Jews around 1200 BC. Note the word conquered. They stole it too.

i left intact your entire silly discourse above just so that as i present this giant clue to you, it might have some effect: the native americans already hold lands within the united states as sovereign nations. sorry you weren't aware of that, it would have saved you a lot of typing!

oh, and to knock another comment above down a peg or two:

egypt and israel, negotiated peace, lasting 28 years.

jordan and israel, negotiated peace, lasting 12 years.

so as far as i'm concerned, this argument that the war has gone on for sixty years is nothing but a lie, repeated to apologize for the islamofascists who want to destroy israel and are unwilling to negotiate peace.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 3:47 pm

koan wrote: I've already mentioned the wikipedia page on Nonviolence as a good starting place.

From that, a reference to Gene Sharp can found.

Of course the concept and application are often a matter of interpretation. I find it interesting that the word sanctions is used to describe the punishment system of oppressive bodies. Not conclusive, just an interesting coincidence. I'm still looking for all the specific examples, outside of India, of how non violent resistance has been successful. Apparently it has helped over a billion people.

non-violence only works if those you are fighting have a conscience, and are not inclined to initiate genocide. furthermore, non-violence tends to still cost innocent lives even without genocide; with the first wave - at the front of the crowd - bearing the casualties, while those behind run for cover when the firing starts. that's not to suggest cowardice - i mean that honestly - it's to suggest that it's a choice to sacrifice some number of innocent people in the name of that particular ideological path. you cannot say that non-violence does not have costs just as does violence. the costs *might* be smaller; however, the costs can be larger (see 'genocide').

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:28 pm

It is unjust for an outsider to say that non violent means should be adopted. I am not the one placing myself in danger so I am merely a philosoper. As such I am thankful that I am not in the situation I seek to address. Even so, I think the success of non violence is under reported and believe it deserves serious consideration. Death is inevitable in times of conflict. The issue is to reduce the number of innocent lives cost. I'm not convinced that violent reaction accomplishes that.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:46 pm

koan wrote: It is unjust for an outsider to say that non violent means should be adopted. I am not the one placing myself in danger so I am merely a philosoper. As such I am thankful that I am not in the situation I seek to address. Even so, I think the success of non violence is under reported and believe it deserves serious consideration. Death is inevitable in times of conflict. The issue is to reduce the number of innocent lives cost. I'm not convinced that violent reaction accomplishes that.

violent and non-violent paths are polar opposites. once one begins, you can't determine what the results would have been if the other had been employed. so it's not possible to ever determine whether violence or non-violence will result in a greater 'net savings' of innocent lives.

to return to the canonical example, the nazis were methodically wiping out the jewish population of europe for most of world war II, along with intellectuals and dissidents, homosexuals, the mentally ill, the physically crippled, the Roma, Poles, Czechs, Serbs, jehovah's witnesses, catholic and protestant clergy, and countless others swept up in their net of "non-aryan".

the work was steady and monotonic. there was no hurry. it would have continued until the last of the above were wiped out. as it was, before the allies stopped the nazis, somewhere between nine million and eleven million were quietly exterminated. some estimates go even higher - we'll never know.

i can't concieve of any means that would have stopped the extermination other than violence against the perpetrators. their lack of conscience was already fully demonstrated by their acts. you cannot sway a monster's heart by the courage or selflessness of non-violent acts. you merely become more ash in the oven.

typically, it is acknowledged that non-violents paths take more time than the immediacy of violent intervention. would an additional few million innocent lives lost been worth the delay?

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:59 pm

I have never claimed to be an "expert" in non violent philosophy. For you to throw Hitler at me as a situation I need to immediately answer to prove the validity of this line of thought is extreme. There is not a Hitler currently existing. That I know of. An earlier quote in this thread mentions over a billion people that have benefitted from non violent rebellion. This justifies the pursuit in my mind. Perhaps there is a way that another Hitler can be overcome through non violence but I am just a student of the movement. I do not want to do it an injustice by claiming to have all the answers. I do, however, think it is worth the investigation.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 7:31 pm

koan wrote: I have never claimed to be an "expert" in non violent philosophy. For you to throw Hitler at me as a situation I need to immediately answer to prove the validity of this line of thought is extreme.

i see nowhere in my post where i even suggested a response of any kind was in order, let alone having 'thow[n]' it at you or said you 'immediately' had to answer it. good god.

There is not a Hitler currently existing. That I know of.

so - history - as a means of learning from - is immaterial to what you're inquiring about?

An earlier quote in this thread mentions over a billion people that have benefitted from non violent rebellion.

billions have benefitted from the violent military defeat of the nazis and japan's imperialist expansion.

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 7:44 pm

anastrophe wrote: i see nowhere in my post where i even suggested a response of any kind was in order, let alone having 'thow[n]' it at you or said you 'immediately' had to answer it. good god.

so - history - as a means of learning from - is immaterial to what you're inquiring about?

billions have benefitted from the violent military defeat of the nazis and japan's imperialist expansion.

you immediately negate your "good god" by your next comment. I'm interested in the history refered to by the earlier quote: In 1989, thirteen nations comprising 1,695,000,000 people experienced nonviolent revolutions that succeeded beyond anyone's wildest expectations ... If we add all the countries touched by major nonviolent actions in our century (the Philippines, South Africa ... the independence movement in India ...) the figure reaches 3,337,400,000, a staggering 65% of humanity! All this in the teeth of the assertion, endlessly repeated, that nonviolence doesn't work in the 'real' world.

(Walter Wink, as quoted by Susan Ives in a 2001 talk)
so over a billion people have benefitted from nonviolent action as well.

As to the Japanese. You speak as someone who justifies the Hiroshimo bombing because it potentially allowed you to live. What about the people who died? Is one American life worth 200 000 Japanese? Are 200 000 American lives better than 200 000 Japanese? I was at a beach a week ago and looked around, then I imagined the skin colour of the people there changing and again realized they are not so different from us. What is your blockage? Has your life made so much of a difference to humanity that you think no Japanese civilian obliterated in that bombing could have surpassed you? If I ceased to exist because of it, quite frankly, I wouldn't know the difference. If they died to save my life, I think it was an injustice. I'm not one to say who's life is worth what.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:17 pm

koan wrote:

so over a billion people have benefitted from nonviolent action as well.

by one particular measure, which has yet to be defined. you seem to not grasp that benefit and genocide are not two sides of the same coin. "benefit" is nice. not dying is nicer. i'm skeptical of the claim that more than a billion people benefited in just the year 1989. and again, benefit is way too ambiguous a term.

As to the Japanese. You speak as someone who justifies the Hiroshimo bombing because it potentially allowed you to live.
as a matter of fact, i've never said that. you may interpret my past comments that way. but misinterpretation is your forte, so i'll defer.

What about the people who died? Is one American life worth 200 000 Japanese? Are 200 000 American lives better than 200 000 Japanese?
no, but given a choice between a million people dying, and 200,000 dying, which would you choose?

I was at a beach a week ago and looked around, then I imagined the skin colour of the people there changing and again realized they are not so different from us. What is your blockage? Has your life made so much of a difference to humanity that you think no Japanese civilian obliterated in that bombing could have surpassed you? If I ceased to exist because of it, quite frankly, I wouldn't know the difference. If they died to save my life, I think it was an injustice. I'm not one to say who's life is worth what.

i'm close to puking here from your presumptuousness. the choice to bomb hiroshima was not a choice between who was worth living. it was a choice between millions dying, and hundreds of thousands. neither choice was 'fun'. sometimes hard choices are made. given the choice on one hand of a million american soldiers dying and likely two million japanese soldiers dying, or 200,000 civilians dying, as a pure, brutal numbers game, the choice was easy.

the japanese slaughtered 300,000 chinese civilians in the rape of nanking. what say you about their choice, which wasn't done with the intention of saving any lives at all?

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:31 pm

anastrophe wrote: by one particular measure, which has yet to be defined. you seem to not grasp that benefit and genocide are not two sides of the same coin. "benefit" is nice. not dying is nicer. i'm skeptical of the claim that more than a billion people benefited in just the year 1989. and again, benefit is way too ambiguous a term.

as a matter of fact, i've never said that. you may interpret my past comments that way. but misinterpretation is your forte, so i'll defer.

no, but given a choice between a million people dying, and 200,000 dying, which would you choose?

i'm close to puking here from your presumptuousness. the choice to bomb hiroshima was not a choice between who was worth living. it was a choice between millions dying, and hundreds of thousands. neither choice was 'fun'. sometimes hard choices are made. given the choice of a million american soldiers not dying, and likely two million japanese soldiers dying, and 200,000 civilians dying, as a pure, brutal numbers game, the choice was easy.

the japanese slaughtered 300,000 chinese civilians in the rape of nanking. what say you about their choice, which wasn't done with the intention of saving any lives at all?

Your propensity for presumptuousness is what turned this thread into a competition. I am not one prone to puking. If you must, I hope you make it to the bathroom on time.

Where is the source of you numerological debate?

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:37 pm

koan wrote: Your propensity for presumptuousness is what turned this thread into a competition. I am not one prone to puking. If you must, I hope you make it to the bathroom on time.

Where is the source of you numerological debate?

as i pointed out mere moments ago, one can only speculate as to the numbers that may have been lost had an action not taken place.

it's possible, though not probable, that the nazis might have tired of their exterminations at just about the time the camps were liberated. to assume so is foolish. it is likely that millions more would have died in the ovens.

similarly, the ground invasion of japan that would have taken place had the bombs not forced japan's unconditional surrender would *likely* have cost millions of lives, both civilian and military. because the bomb was dropped, we can't know - saved lives don't leave behind a body to be counted. estimates have varied widely, but most are based on the extremely high casualty rates found in many of the battles in the pacific. only the naive believe it would not have been far costlier in human lives lost than by dropping the bomb.

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:38 pm

also, btw, I have yet to see your essay to congress on why the Native Americans deserve a portion of the USA by natural rights.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:40 pm

koan wrote: also, btw, I have yet to see your essay to congress on why the Native Americans deserve a portion of the USA by natural rights.

have you lost your mind? or minimally, your ability to read? i already pointed out to you that the native americans already have their own sovereign nations within the borders of the united states.

what part of that don't you understand?

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:41 pm

koan, do you believe the nation of israel should be abolished, and the jews forced out of the land?

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:44 pm

anastrophe wrote:

as a matter of fact, i've never said that. you may interpret my past comments that way. but misinterpretation is your forte, so i'll defer.

excuse my "misinterpretation". You said:

anastrophe wrote: while it would probably be salutory for your sake here on forumgarden, i'm quite sure i would not exist today had the bomb not been dropped on hiroshima and nagasaki. my father was on a month long furlough in the US when the bombs were dropped. he was going to be deployed in the pacific theatre after the furlough. having beaten the odds by being the one in ten from his company of 100 men who didn't die in europe, i cannot believe his luck would not have run out.

I think my interpretation is somewhat justified.

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:45 pm

anastrophe wrote: koan, do you believe the nation of israel should be abolished, and the jews forced out of the land?

I believe the Native Americans and Canadians should be given their own country in keeping with your philosophy regarding Israel but more so. I wouldn't fight it.

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:47 pm

It's all about borders. I'm not much into them.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:52 pm

koan wrote: excuse my "misinterpretation". You said:

I think my interpretation is somewhat justified.

i said nothing about my life being worth more than anyone else's, so your interpretation is, to put it in simple terms, completely obnoxious and insulting crap. i was clearly speculating on the likelyhood my father would have died.

your methods are sickening.

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 9:03 pm

anastrophe wrote: i said nothing about my life being worth more than anyone else's, so your interpretation is, to put it in simple terms, completely obnoxious and insulting crap. i was clearly speculating on the likelyhood my father would have died.

your methods are sickening.

It is your methods under scrutiny at the moment.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 9:07 pm

koan wrote: It is your methods under scrutiny at the moment.

yawn. your scrutiny, thankfully, is as meaningful to me as what the wines of shiraz become.

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 9:14 pm

I'm not much for red wine either. That's two yawns from you tonight. Perhaps you've got something more interesting to say?

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 9:15 pm

koan wrote: I believe the Native Americans and Canadians should be given their own country in keeping with your philosophy regarding Israel but more so. I wouldn't fight it.

for the third time, the native americans in the US have sovereign nations of their own, within our borders. they have their own countries.

you're dancing all over the map here. native americans shoudl have their own sovereign nations, which they do. israel should be abolished however, and the jews dispersed.

whichever ideology you can stuff into your 'if it's the opposite of what the US might desire, i'm for it' mentality, eh?

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 9:26 pm

you might note that I included part of Canada in the Native claim to territory. I'd like to see where their borders are and hear the name of the country they've been recognized as having sovereignty in.

anastrophe wrote: israel should be abolished however, and the jews dispersed. that is the first time I've heard that sentiment expressed. You're the one who said it. I, personally, think there is no right or wrong in the matter. As I've expressed earlier, I think borders are a load of *****.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 12:08 pm

I'm interested in your "no borders" idea, Koan. Would you say more about that for me?

koan · Post by **koan** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 12:29 pm

Lulu2 wrote: I'm interested in your "no borders" idea, Koan. Would you say more about that for me?

Unfortunately I do not have complete philosophy about borders that can be presented, but I'm working on it.

The basic premise is that the land of the world belongs to everyone and that ownership is not a natural right. I have no patriotic attachment to any flag. I view all of humanity as my "group". I believe the resources of the world should be used for the betterment of all people not just the ones who managed to geographically nab them.

I'd love input in forming a complete philosophy. I'm currently reading A Theory of Property by Stephen R. Munzer as a starting point for writing the ideas down.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 12:33 pm

"Tribal" feelings seem such an ingrained part of human nature! I wonder...do you lock your doors? I'm not being argumentative...just curious.

koan · Post by **koan** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 12:41 pm

Lulu2 wrote: "Tribal" feelings seem such an ingrained part of human nature! I wonder...do you lock your doors? I'm not being argumentative...just curious.

No. I don't lock my doors.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 12:44 pm

Then, does this mean you don't approve of "private property?"

It's hard to imagine how it would work...no borders/no "tribes."

koan · Post by **koan** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 12:51 pm

I don't agree with the hoarding of private property.

Imagining how it would work is the first step in formulating the philosophy.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 12:55 pm

hoarding of private property

Would you say more about that? Is some private property (a car or a house, for example) possible? Would a classic car collection be considered "hoarding?" What about my boat? Or a necklace?

koan · Post by **koan** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 1:20 pm

The study of private property involves wading through stuff like this: (formatting won't copy)

The derivative of this expression with respect to s

o

has the same sign as (n −

1)βπ

b

/(1 − p

u

), which is positive. Moreover, when s

o

= 0, ∂π

c

/∂s

o

has the same

sign as

π

g

π

b

(1 − c)

− 1 +

s

u

β(1 − c)

2

,

which is positive. Therefore, ∂π

c

/∂s

o

is always strictly positive, so s

o

= 1 maxi-

mizes π

c

.

In deciding whether or not to contest, the migrant chooses s

u

to maximize π

u

,

and then contests if this expression exceeds π

b

(1 − c). But ∂π

u

/∂s

u

has the same

sign as

π

g

π

b

(1 − c)

− s − 1 +

s

u

β

2np

u

,

which is increasing in s

u

and is positive when s

u

= 0, so the optimal s

u

= 1. The

condition for not contesting the incumbent is then

π

g

π

b

(1 − c)

− 1

to get something that can be understood through the normal usage of words. The Theory of Property is a little easier to understand than the mathematical equation quoted above but I am by no means conversant on the subject yet.

What I mean by hoarding, since it needs to be explained, is best described by the recently coined word "Affluenza"

google search results

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 1:22 pm

Koan, sidebar here: What is your educational background? You seem to know a lot about a lot of different things (and that is a compliment to you and your brains!) :-6

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 1:26 pm

:-2 Well, THAT just clears it ALL up for me! :wah:

I understand "affluenza," though, and like that word a lot! Thanks. And good luck with formulating your position. Unfortunately, I'm just tooooo busy to help you! :wah:

koan · Post by **koan** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 1:40 pm

cherandbuster wrote: Koan, sidebar here: What is your educational background? You seem to know a lot about a lot of different things (and that is a compliment to you and your brains!) :-6

Jack of all trades master of none. I went to college and trade school after watching my brother get a university degree in nothing particularly useful.

Thank you for the compliment. I become obsessed with a topic and read everything about it I can get my hands on. My favourite apartment was right across the street from a large library. I don't necessarily know a lot. I learn by asking questions but the questions never end.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 12:51 pm

koan wrote: What I mean by hoarding, since it needs to be explained, is best described by the recently coined word "Affluenza"

google search results

how very curious. very curious indeed. my dictionary shows no such word as affluenza. and reading the informal "definitions" of the term, it strikes me as a something that could easily be used as an epithet - i can certainly see how it could offend a person to have that label applied to them, though i can also see it used more neutrally as an abbreviated descriptor.

how does this differ from my, and others, use of the term islamofascism?

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 2:38 pm

anastrophe wrote: how very curious. very curious indeed. my dictionary shows no such word as affluenza. and reading the informal "definitions" of the term, it strikes me as a something that could easily be used as an epithet - i can certainly see how it could offend a person to have that label applied to them, though i can also see it used more neutrally as an abbreviated descriptor.

how does this differ from my, and others, use of the term islamofascism?

because I didn't use it as a factual term.

koan wrote: What I mean by hoarding, since it needs to be explained, is best described by the recently coined word "Affluenza"

recently coined. best described by. what part of epithet do you not understand? I linked to a google search that results in a film under that name and web pages describing it as a phenomenon. the google search for "islamofascist" result in links to the word as an epithet.

Weak arguments are best left for weak debaters. I still don't consider you to be such.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 4:42 pm

koan wrote: because I didn't use it as a factual term.

as opposed to what, a fictional term? gimme a break.

recently coined.
same for islamofascism.

best described by. what part of epithet do you not understand?
none. it's an epithet. this shouldn't need spelling out.

I linked to a google search that results in a film under that name and web pages describing it as a phenomenon. the google search for "islamofascist" result in links to the word as an epithet.

Weak arguments are best left for weak debaters. I still don't consider you to be such.

weak arguments are supported by citing google search results and wikipedia, neither of which are canonical sources by even the wildest imagined measure, the first not even a reference of any kind. what part of "search" don't you understand? if i search on "moon walk" it will bring up results from paranoid schizophrenics who believe it took place on a hollywood soundstage. the mere existence of a search result means nothing. wikipedia is a nice aggregator of information, but it can be gamed, manipulated, and vandalized at any given moment, rendering any result one might cull suspect on its face. if you *follow up* a wikipedia search with some real scholarly investigation, then certainly - but then why bother citing wikipedia in the first place, then?

your equivocation is really pathetic. affluenza is no different from islamofascism. they are both contractions of separate words to form a 'new' word. you don't like the term islamofascism, therefore you condemn it. you like the term affluenza, so you won't condemn it, even though it has patently offensive connotations.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 4:52 pm

anastrophe wrote: the mere existence of a search result means nothing. wikipedia is a nice aggregator of information, but it can be gamed, manipulated, and vandalized at any given moment, rendering any result one might cull suspect on its face.

speaking of which. this took place just a couple of days ago.

http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/t ... _41314.asp

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 4:56 pm

Pinky wrote: Forgive me here, but new terms and words are being 'coined' all the time..If they weren't, we'd still be struggling with communicative terms. Like we don't already?

If someone 'coins' something that the majority can understand, and is relateable to our society, then why not use it?

The term 'Affluenza' is a very valid term indeed, in a day and age where everything seems to revolve around what you have or don't have.

I do think it is a state of mind that needs a label - what makes 'stuff' so important? It doesn't make you a better person. It doesn't bring you lasting happiness. All it does is enable you to feel superior to your peeps, and for what? No social life, a dwindling home life and stress up to the eyeballs?

Not superior in my eyes.

Ok, I can wrk extra hard for that nice house, but I'll sure as hell never be home to appreciate it. That's Affluenza for you.

Tell me I'm wrong if you like, but I won't be around until Tuesdat=y to read it anyway, so save it until then, huh?

affluenza is a fine term, i have no objection to its existence. it is pejorative however in that it is a generalization of behaviors based on a particular set of value judgements.

same for islamofascism.

my argument is that koan presses how offensive islamofascism is - even claiming it's not even a valid term - but has no problem pushing a term that fits her mindset of others.

i say they're both valid terms, both can be pejorative - epithets - but that doesn't mean they have no validity in discourse.

we use the term "republican" as a generalization, even though it covers thousands of different points of view, of varying degrees. same for 'democrat'. both are used pejoratively. both are used as labels of honor. both are valid terms, regardless of the fact that they can be used as epithets.