ISIS
Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None |
 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
Okay, fair copthere is more to the issue than mere consequences. Perhaps what I'm advocating here is something a bit more like "act utilitarianism" where the decision of how to act is made according to the most likely consequences. Given that, I'm not at all convinced that the US were acting with noble motivations (Which is how "overthrow a tyrant, seek to minimise civilian casualties, then give people a vote, spend money on reconstruction and depart" sounds), nor that what transpired was an unlikely scenario or would have been seen as such.
Of course, there's no equivalence between the two. But I still place far less stock on the supposed morality of the actors involved than you seem to (generally speaking, I presume a default state of pure self-interest anyway). When you're making decisions on this kind of scale, I struggle to see a significant difference between recklessness and deliberate malevolence. Not when so many lives are on the line.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
 |
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | 1061 wrote: |
This thread would be monitored fact, like thousands or millions of other online discussions the bots would be searching for key words and who knows if one of us hasn't used one of those key words and red flagged Nicks. Doesn't concern me as all my other online activities I cannot see bringing me any grief from the law, do you have some concerns? |
Of course, this is a public forum. Now, how do you feel about your private emails, text messages, phone calls, internet browsing history being monitored? That's the real issue at hand here. |
Are you silly or naive enough to believe that those aren't already recorded and stored?
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| AN_Inkling wrote: | | Mugwump wrote: | However, it can also be an act of empathy to want people to be free from an oppressor like Hussein, and plenty of good people saw the issue that way.
|
But do you think this was ever the intent of the willing? I think it was far more calculated and self-serving than that and given the consequences of the action it could very much be categorised as "evil" if we think that term has any meaning. |
If it was calculated and self-serving then yes, but I doubt that all of the "willing", or the refuseniks for that matter, had the same motives. In the fervent run up to 2003 i spoke with several people who felt, more or less, that the prospects of Iraqis were not worth the lives of one Western soldier. I'm not sure that was a more worthy position than those who felt that Saddam was a kelptocratic tyrant and a torturer squatting on a noble people, and judged that his overthrow offered Iraqis a better future.
I also think that we should remember that most of the post-war killing was done by people with the ideology of IS, not the Coalition. People talk of the post-Iraq position as though the invaders are responsible for the acts of IS and their forerunners. I think we should be wary of advancing the agenda of IS by conflating these things. It does not justify the Iraq War to caution against an over-simplistic narrative.
_________________
Two more flags before I die!
Last edited by Mugwump on Sat Sep 20, 2014 9:21 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: | | David wrote: | | Is there anyone here who doesn't think that Abbott and co. are milking this supposed threat for all it's worth? |
I don't really give a ****, I'm just happy for the poor random that isn't getting his head chopped off with a rusty blunt knife |
Someone wrote in the Age today that one woman is murdered / killed every week by man usually known to her. In the main she has been threatened before as have the children & she has reported this to the police before.
These are known cases rather than a possible random threat (which I don't understate) but it's an appallingly chilling & challenging fact.
_________________
âI even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didnât keep âem under long enoughâ Kinky Friedman
Last edited by watt price tully on Sat Sep 20, 2014 9:08 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | [quote="AN_Inkling"][quote="Mugwump"]However, it can also be an act of empathy to want people to be free from an oppressor like Hussein, and plenty of good people saw the issue that way.
[/quote]
But do you think this was ever the intent of the willing? I think it was far more calculated and self-serving than that and given the consequences of the action it could very much be categorised as "evil" if we think that term has any meaning.[/quote]
If it was calculated and self-serving then yes, but I doubt that all of the "willing", or the refuseniks for that matter, had the same motives. In the fervent run up to 2003 i spoke with several people who felt, more or less, that the prospects of Iraqis were not worth the lives of one Western soldier. I'm not sure that was a more worthy position than those who felt that Saddam was a kelptocratic tyrant and a torturer squatting on a noble people, and felt that his overthrow offered Iraqis a better future.
I also think that we should remember that most of the post-war killing was done by people with the ideology of IS, not the Coalition. People talk of the post-Iraq position as though the invaders are responsible for the acts of IS and their forerunners. I think we should be wary of advancing the agenda of IS by conflating these things. It does not justify the Iraq War to caution against an over-simplistic narrative. |
What does justify the Iraq War to caution against an over-simplistic narrative ? |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | David wrote: | | 1061 wrote: |
This thread would be monitored fact, like thousands or millions of other online discussions the bots would be searching for key words and who knows if one of us hasn't used one of those key words and red flagged Nicks. Doesn't concern me as all my other online activities I cannot see bringing me any grief from the law, do you have some concerns? |
Of course, this is a public forum. Now, how do you feel about your private emails, text messages, phone calls, internet browsing history being monitored? That's the real issue at hand here. |
Are you silly or naive enough to believe that those aren't already recorded and stored? |
No, I well believe it. What you should be asking is whether I'm silly or naive enough to think that they shouldn't be, in which case the answer is yes, I am.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | Okay, fair copthere is more to the issue than mere consequences. Perhaps what I'm advocating here is something a bit more like "act utilitarianism" where the decision of how to act is made according to the most likely consequences. |
That would be fine, if the likely consequences were accessible via an algorithm, but they are in reality a matter of judgement and debate, where people of good will can come to very different conclusions. If the consequences were clear in advance, then indeed we'd be one step closer to what was right and wrong in a particular case.
I think it's true that we should not overbalance and care about intent above all, however. Rational calculation of likely consequences for other people matters - as far as this is possible in a world where we all have our filters and the future is uncertain.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | | David wrote: | | 1061 wrote: |
This thread would be monitored fact, like thousands or millions of other online discussions the bots would be searching for key words and who knows if one of us hasn't used one of those key words and red flagged Nicks. Doesn't concern me as all my other online activities I cannot see bringing me any grief from the law, do you have some concerns? |
Of course, this is a public forum. Now, how do you feel about your private emails, text messages, phone calls, internet browsing history being monitored? That's the real issue at hand here. |
Are you silly or naive enough to believe that those aren't already recorded and stored? |
No, I well believe it. What you should be asking is whether I'm silly or naive enough to think that they shouldn't be, in which case the answer is yes, I am. |
They are and they're going to be. The question really shouldn't be whether the information is kept but who has access to it. You're on the wrong tram.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ Is it really? I would have thought "whoever's in power and whoever has been charged with enforcing it" would be the easy answer to that second question. At best, we cross our fingers and hope that this power is acting (and will always act) in our best interests.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | | AN_Inkling wrote: | | Mugwump wrote: | However, it can also be an act of empathy to want people to be free from an oppressor like Hussein, and plenty of good people saw the issue that way.
|
But do you think this was ever the intent of the willing? I think it was far more calculated and self-serving than that and given the consequences of the action it could very much be categorised as "evil" if we think that term has any meaning. |
If it was calculated and self-serving then yes, but I doubt that all of the "willing", or the refuseniks for that matter, had the same motives. In the fervent run up to 2003 i spoke with several people who felt, more or less, that the prospects of Iraqis were not worth the lives of one Western soldier. I'm not sure that was a more worthy position than those who felt that Saddam was a kelptocratic tyrant and a torturer squatting on a noble people, and judged that his overthrow offered Iraqis a better future.
I also think that we should remember that most of the post-war killing was done by people with the ideology of IS, not the Coalition. People talk of the post-Iraq position as though the invaders are responsible for the acts of IS and their forerunners. I think we should be wary of advancing the agenda of IS by conflating these things. It does not justify the Iraq War to caution against an over-simplistic narrative. |
I was talking of the willing governments. And yeah they're responsible for the resultant killing. To what degree depends on your viewpoint, but going into Iraq on a lie and a prayer was most definitely a radicalist's propaganda wet dream.
_________________
Well done boys! |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| AN_Inkling wrote: | | Mugwump wrote: | | AN_Inkling wrote: | | Mugwump wrote: | However, it can also be an act of empathy to want people to be free from an oppressor like Hussein, and plenty of good people saw the issue that way.
|
But do you think this was ever the intent of the willing? I think it was far more calculated and self-serving than that and given the consequences of the action it could very much be categorised as "evil" if we think that term has any meaning. |
If it was calculated and self-serving then yes, but I doubt that all of the "willing", or the refuseniks for that matter, had the same motives. In the fervent run up to 2003 i spoke with several people who felt, more or less, that the prospects of Iraqis were not worth the lives of one Western soldier. I'm not sure that was a more worthy position than those who felt that Saddam was a kelptocratic tyrant and a torturer squatting on a noble people, and judged that his overthrow offered Iraqis a better future.
I also think that we should remember that most of the post-war killing was done by people with the ideology of IS, not the Coalition. People talk of the post-Iraq position as though the invaders are responsible for the acts of IS and their forerunners. I think we should be wary of advancing the agenda of IS by conflating these things. It does not justify the Iraq War to caution against an over-simplistic narrative. |
I was talking of the willing governments. And yeah they're responsible for the resultant killing. To what degree depends on your viewpoint, but going into Iraq on a lie and a prayer was most definitely a radicalist's propaganda wet dream. |
Indeed. Assessing consequences is the main way we protect ourselves from irrational influence, from naivete to outright manipulation and fraud.
For instance, one of the primary traits of psychopathy (not just psychopathy as a primary condition, but also psychopathy in the form of a side-effect of severe other conditions such as extreme narcissism, borderline personality disorder, or bipolar disorder), is compulsive deceit and manipulation.
And we can add to that social psychopathy of the sort we see in genocides and witch hunts where people whip themselves up into all sorts of frenzy and hysteria which essentially simulates a psychopathy.
Mugwump, you talk as if propaganda, manipulation, frenzy and malign deceit don't exist, and as if those inclined would not be more likely than chance to seek positions of consequential power. In fact, if you think it through, that's precisely where you would expect the brighter and more upwardly mobile among such malign psychiatries to end up (many others, of course, end up criminals), just as you already expect pedophiles to try to find ways of working with children.
Many others, of course, simply get dragged along in the complexity and self-justification, much as the priests who turn a blind eye to the pedophiles in their midst.
This is basic human social psychology, and has nothing to do with conspiracy theories and the like. Put simply, power attracts the corrupt.
Let me give you one tiny example I have quoted before from the Gulf War. This is about the most deranged propaganda effort studied in modern timesand completely and utterly mainstream, planned and sanctioned by the precise people those prone to believing in authority simply can't bring themselves to imagine not trusting.
From what I can tell, this is par for the course for systems of unaccountable, unchecked power such as the Pentagon and Department of State, and equivalents elsewhere:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_(testimony)
Think about what you already know from history. People can convince themselves of anything under certain circumstances, from the inferiority of entire peoples to the point of justifying their extermination, to the rightness of moving pedophiles from one church to another, to the moral acceptability of "collateral damage" to save civilisation from x threat (and especially collateral damage which just so happens to help Fred Jones' who gave my daughter a marvelous job in NY and whose shares in an oil exploration company will be greatly boosted in the process).
The grand delusion here is that our "psychopaths in high places" are different because they say the right things, comb their hair like us, and look like people we know. Well, guess what? Just about every other people group on the planet thinks exactly the same about their psychopaths in high places. And, being pathological master deceivers by trade, the brighter psychopaths know this only too well.
Whether it be textbook psychopathy, psychopathic delusion, or a sort of social psychopathic hysteria, all involved spend much of their time building elaborate self justification and propaganda systems. Our job as intelligent, sane citizens is not to cower in denial because it's tough admitting people we identify with can be vile pricks, but to keep this natural selection process in check by making people and systems accountable, exposing dangerous sub-cultures (from un-elected intelligence organisations, to religious power systems, to cults and terrorist groups), and by casting a critical eye over BS unsupported claims.
The bizarre thing here, Mugwump, is that you wouldn't consider people's "claimed intention" as sufficient when dealing with money or investments, but you're willing to give it a go when dealing with lives. This is a monumental contradiction.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ Lots in your post above that I agree with. I agree that many people in power will be motivated by a desire for power over others, and for control over events. So yes, psychopaths are probably disproportionately represented in powerful positions - though it does not follow that everyone in a position of power is a liar or a psychopath. In the latter parts of my career I've spent a fair bit of time with people in positions of considerable power (in public and private sectors) and I know that they're a mixed bunch - from definitely psychopathic, to highly principled and even idealistic, and many points in between. But yes, slightly more sociopaths than average, I agree.
Let's not forget, too, that exercising power in a complex environment is actually difficult, and sometimes human beings just make mistakes.
Given our agreement on the nature of many who wield power, I'm reminded that the great John Clarke once memorably defined satire as "an exposure of that process by which the rich and powerful hold the public up to ridicule and contempt". The only defence against this is systemic ; a free press, free speech, free elections, an independent judiciary,and a vigorous parliamentary opposition et al. Nothing qualifies us as better than any other homo sapiens - we're not - but these things do qualify our (imperfect) political system as better than most, I think.
Given these, in my view it's sensible to accord our "sociopaths" the benefit of the doubt when they come into contest with the dictatorships. Of course, when lies like WMD (or Nayira) are discovered, it's important we expose and damn those as well.
On your last point, I do actually look at people's claimed intention when investing - but I also look at the systemic constraints (eg law) on their action, their incentives, whether I have grounds to trust them based on track record and personal knowledge etc. If my advisor makes a bad investment, though, I don't consider them corrupt because it went wrong - I judge them on whether I thought they were trying to do the right thing, and if I am satisfied on that point, I question their competence, not their probity. The architects of Iraq II, I suspect, had a mixture of motives, but they were pretty clearly all culpably incompetent at minimum.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | Given our agreement on the nature of many who wield power, I'm reminded that the great John Clarke once memorably defined satire as "an exposure of that process by which the rich and powerful hold the public up to ridicule and contempt". The only defence against this is systemic ; a free press, free speech, free elections, an independent judiciary,and a vigorous parliamentary opposition et al. Nothing qualifies us as better than any other homo sapiens - we're not - but these things do qualify our (imperfect) political system as better than most, I think.
Given these, in my view it's sensible to accord our "sociopaths" the benefit of the doubt when they come into contest with the dictatorships. |
I'm with you on the first paragraphthe presence of some checks and balances does seem to tend towards more reliable governmentbut I think the next point is a logical misstep. Indeed, it would only follow logically if our leaders were perfect, which of course they're not, or dictators were totally evil and harmful, which of course they're not. So, there are certainly at least some situations where a dictator could be in the right in such a conflict; though, I think it's more likely still that both are in the wrong.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ oh yes, that's what I meant by the "benefit of the doubt". It does not imply unqualified and uncritical acceptance. It just means that the scrutiny applied to democratic politicans means that the chances are that they're telling you the nearer version of the truth than an autocrat.
Until you have clear evidence to the contrary, it's better to believe the guy whose system is probably testing his/her word amd publishing the results of that test. Too often i think the contemporary western Left consider democrats to be as sleazy and unreliable as autocrats. I just think that attitude succours the repressors and dishonours our genuine freedoms. Stil, yes, lies and manipulation are prevalent in Western politics, too, and truth is itself a complex concept once one steps into the world of narrative and interpretation.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | ^ oh yes, that's what I meant by the "benefit of the doubt". It does not imply unqualified and uncritical acceptance. It just means that the scrutiny applied to democratic politicans means that the chances are that they're telling you the nearer version of the truth than an autocrat.
Until you have clear evidence to the contrary, it's better to believe the guy whose system is probably testing his/her word amd publishing the results of that test. Too often i think the contemporary western Left consider democrats to be as sleazy and unreliable as autocrats. I just think that attitude succours the repressors and dishonours our genuine freedoms. Stil, yes, lies and manipulation are prevalent in Western politics, too, and truth is itself a complex concept once one steps into the world of narrative and interpretation. |
Your contrast here makes for a very poor heuristic, and again you're clutching at straws rather than grasping the plainly obvious, namely that neither you nor we are special, even if we are lucky. You're assuming the presence of a tyrant in a more tyrannical system than your own makes someone in your own system ipso facto more believable. But not only does Fred Smith's degree of evil tell us nothing about Peter Jones' believability in any specific instance, you're making the quantum leap of scaling that non sequitur to the level of entire, complex systems. This is the realm of cosmic fairy floss, not due diligence.
Knowing Kim Jong-il was a nutter had no bearing whatsoever on the fact that George W. Bush was obviously an incompetent, disassociated fool who lived in a grossly ignorant, rarefied world of self-congratulating elite bum slappers and "job creators". And knowing that George W. Bush was American had even less bearing on knowing Kim Jong-il was a whacko, disassociated cult leader surrounded by elite sycophants.
This is just more of the mental game play I keep referring to; in the face of a lack of serious, actual knowledge, we play all sorts of symbolic games in our heads that have no worldly, situational or material bearing (such "mental heuristics" are natural, but simply lack efficacy in complex situations they were not designed to deal with) .
The deity of the nation is a fraught foundation for calculating anything of importance except the obvious. What next, Jewish mathematicians over Chinese mathematicians, and Chinese mathematicians over ISIS mathematicians on a Jihadi mission?
No, some things are universal, such as corruption, greed, the intransparency of power, the temptation for people to blindly follow authority, the belief in the superiority and trustworthiness of one's own kind, and so on. And the critical point is that these universals forever search for avenues of expression. In some cultures, those avenues are in places which we find confronting, such as in our faces at check points and government offices. In other cultures, they're hidden away more, such as in unaccountable intelligence organisations, or at dinner parties where elites brush shoulders and trade favours.
The fact that Kim Jong-il manifestly looked like a total nutter didn't make the "collateral damage" of George W's Iraq War, such as the parentless child, any better off than the "collateral damage" of Kim Jong-il holding onto power through fear and violence, even if he truly thought he was somehow saving "the pure race" from the forces of evil on his nation's doorstep. Not one iota better off.
Kim Jong-il was operating in an extremely isolated culture and his version of public relations manifested itself in what looked to us as bizarro propaganda, just like the propaganda of the Vietnam War looks more idiotic today, and the Iraq War propaganda is looking more and more implausible every year.
Just because the people around us at the everyday scale seem more-or-less decent and sane, doesn't mean all those same dark forces are not working their black arts in places we can't access. Just as the pedophile is trying to deceive his way into working with children, and indeed succeeding in our very own culture, often with the support of smiling godly-looking folk around him, so too is the power-wielding nutjob or elite in other places we can't access. And worse; just think of how many people still to this day defend the Iraq War; they're the equivalent of those who looked the other way or now refuse to condemn the church for fostering a sociopathic, dysfunctional haven for pedophiles.
The society we were fortunate enough to have been born into may have more stability and more resources, and thus has made its way to much less dysfunction, but much of our own dysfunction is exported, excused and overlooked, and thus greatly understated. Moreover, one of its greatest areas of its expression is in foreign relations, where it gets to hide behind "intelligence", "secret operations", "terrorist threats", child-like TV depictions, geographic distance and ignorance, fear of the unknown, and our own secret desire to grab more and benefit from such dysfunction without paying for it in cash or in kind with our moral reputations.
Look, I guess I'm just repeating and expanding the same point now. But I would say that's in response to you trying to find new ways of defending your original premise (a bit like a Mormon at the front door  ), and insisting that you and those you identify with have some special and singular capability as Homo sapiens. This assumption makes you greatly downplay, dismiss, avert and justify; not because I think you're anything like the people I mistrust, and not because I don't think you're an extremely sophisticated, intelligent and likable chap, but because it's hard for all of us to deal with the contradictions we sense within ourselves and within our efforts to mentally and emotionally manage the world around us.
We're part of what, from the outside, would look like a massively hypocritical and violent system to a neutral observer, yet we don't feel hypocritical and immoral; on the contrary, we feel cognitively and morally superior. How does that work?
Of course, it's propped up by the delusions we inherit as members of our species, and additionally those we buttress ourselves with to get by in life. I have no problem with that as I think our species has little choice but to construct such "delusions"; sadly, myself very much included! I mean, our cognition is geared to do precisely that, which is why we can say sense the problems with, say, as our assumption of free will, but cannot do anything about them. We're meaning-making beasts, and that meaning-making involves positioning ourselves front-and-center of everything, including morality. This gives us great adaptability in the face of complex social negotiations, which is no doubt why such innate abilities, and more complex human social relations, are very late developments in our biology and anthropology.
But despite our predicament, there is still some scope for grasping our subjectivity a little, and allowing it to soften the edges of this protective and motivational mental edifice we build around ourselves, due mostly to the incredibly safe and bountiful existence people with our citizenship have inherited.
Soften the edges of our mental constructs too much, and we have reefer madness; soften them too little, and we have authoritarianism, imperialism and violent plunder. Our innate meaning making capacity is a tool for adapting rapidly to new environments; on a complex, shrinking and crowded planet, we need to have the courage to deploy it more productively.
Edited and expanded.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
