|
Post by m52nickerson on Feb 10, 2011 23:04:28 GMT -5
Some things deserve hatred. I'd argue that executive criminal activity is one of them- particularly when that criminal activity is mass murder. As for vitriol- which is "bitterly abusive language; invective or vituperation"- I disagree that that is what Napoleon did. What makes RR and Freakconservatives so bad isn't their language, or their emotional response to events. It's their dishonesty and their bullshit ideology that's at fault, not the words used or the grammer employed. Hating is one thing. Displaying that hate is another. RR would claim they we are dishonest and that our ideology is wrong as well. When you can show there was no good intentions. That is not to excuse them of their actions or the consequences, but to decide if they should bear labels such as monster, or evil.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Feb 10, 2011 23:44:35 GMT -5
RR would claim they we are dishonest and that our ideology is wrong as well. RR says a lot of things, but that doesn't mean it's worth listening to them.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Feb 11, 2011 0:38:49 GMT -5
Some things deserve hatred. I'd argue that executive criminal activity is one of them- particularly when that criminal activity is mass murder. As for vitriol- which is "bitterly abusive language; invective or vituperation"- I disagree that that is what Napoleon did. What makes RR and Freakconservatives so bad isn't their language, or their emotional response to events. It's their dishonesty and their bullshit ideology that's at fault, not the words used or the grammer employed. Hating is one thing. Displaying that hate is another. I disagree. If hatred is a reasonable reponse, displaying hate is a reasonble action. But they are wrong and we are right. Their claims are dishonest because they do not match with reality; ours do. Their ideology is immoral because it violates obvious social norms. Like not discriminating against people without a reason, or not killing people you don't have to. Well, okay. Tojo just wanted what was best for Asia. Torquemada wanted best for Spain, ect. There was no ill intent at all, right? If that's your standard, apply it always.
|
|
|
Post by worlder on Feb 11, 2011 1:18:09 GMT -5
Ah the age old debate of "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."
One of those things that adds instant drama to the plot.
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Feb 11, 2011 1:18:35 GMT -5
Some things deserve hatred. I'd argue that executive criminal activity is one of them- particularly when that criminal activity is mass murder. As for vitriol- which is "bitterly abusive language; invective or vituperation"- I disagree that that is what Napoleon did. What makes RR and Freakconservatives so bad isn't their language, or their emotional response to events. It's their dishonesty and their bullshit ideology that's at fault, not the words used or the grammer employed. Hating is one thing. Displaying that hate is another. RR would claim they we are dishonest and that our ideology is wrong as well. So we're not supposed to call out vile actions and vile people? Wow. [/quote] Show me that Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gayce, Son of Sam, or the Unibomber had no good intentions. The presence of absence of good intentions don't mean anything. It's totally fucking irrelevant. Ronald Reagan showed that he didn't give a flying fuck about people that weren't wealthy. A lack of empathy for fellow human beings is a sign of being a not very good person. Ronald Reagan did bad things. He did not do nearly as much good. He provided aid to people who most certainly were bad men. What the fuck does it take to be "Evil", blowing up a fucking city while masturbating to tortured screams?
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Feb 11, 2011 8:04:19 GMT -5
I disagree. If hatred is a reasonable reponse, displaying hate is a reasonble action. It is only reasonable if you want hate back. Well, some of here are right. You are wrong about some of your views. Does that mean I should hate you? People have been discriminating against others for so long it is more of the social norm then not. That does not mean it should continue. I would not say Tojo was evil. He was a military officer that carried out the wishes of his government. Yes, I realize they under his command tortured and killed POWs. Some of that went on on our side as well. Torquemada I would say was evil. He was not trying to do what was best for Spain. He was helping the church grow in power by using fear.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Feb 11, 2011 8:49:03 GMT -5
So we're not supposed to call out vile actions and vile people? Wow. I never said we can't call people out for their actions. That can be done with hatred. Also be careful, just because you disagree with someones descisions does not mean they are vile. What good intentions did they have? Maybe you could argue that Kaczynski was trying to change things. The difference between Them and Reagan is that they intended to kill inocent people. Reagan believed that his economic policies would in fact benifit the poor and middle class. That was suppost to be the whole point of trickle down economics. Oviously he was wrong. Reagan also did cut funding to mental hospitals, as he did with many things. I doubt when deciding what to cut and how much he did so with malic twords anyone. He felt some spending need to reduced for the overall good of the country. He also felt that he needed to prevent the forceful spread of communisum. I doubt he intended or wanted inocent people to die. That would do it.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Feb 11, 2011 9:12:49 GMT -5
I'm sure telling the corpse of a homeless person that Reagan didn't intend for him/her to freeze to death in a Minnesota winter when the mental hospital was shut down will make everything matter.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Feb 11, 2011 12:04:31 GMT -5
......I'm sure it will
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Feb 11, 2011 18:50:41 GMT -5
So we're not supposed to call out vile actions and vile people? Wow. I never said we can't call people out for their actions. That can be done with hatred. Also be careful, just because you disagree with someones descisions does not mean they are vile. It's not that I disagree, it's that his actions caused harm. Harm that you could figure out would occur simply by using some fucking logic. Either Reagan was a fucking moron that should never have been in a position of power, or he didn't give a flying fuck about the little people. Allowing millions of people to come to harm through apathy isn't any less deplorable than personally killing a dozen. Uh-uh, you said that we need to disprove good intentions. Don't be a hypocrite. Once again, apathy doesn't make one any less of a shitty person. Not thinking things through doesn't make you any less of an asshole. Or do you think that cunt that did that "study" claiming vaccines cause autism (he used falsified data, by the way, so his results were intentional) isn't a shitty person? "Intent" only matters as to whether the charge should be voluntary or negligent. See above. He had the resources at his disposal to find ways to prevent the spread of communism without doing things that directly harmed innocents, or funding those who had, and would continue to, harm innocents. When you're the most powerful man in the world your options will almost never be limited to "fund terrorists". Anything less than that?
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Feb 11, 2011 21:04:43 GMT -5
I'm not a big fan of directing hatred towards other people, but hating actions and heavily offensive ideas seems perfectly reasonable to me. I don't hate Reagan, but I hate trickle-down economics because it's a thinly veiled method of making the rich richer, while flipping the bird at the middle and lower classes. Likewise, I do not hate George W. Bush -- I hate the Patriot Act, etc.
Mind you, there are always going to be exceptions to the "don't hate people" philosophy, but those are way too subjective to properly define.
And the thing that separates us from RR is that we (most of us) don't condone violence and limiting other people's basic freedoms just because we disagree with them. If someone here says "Burn Alabama to the ground", there's a very good chance that they don't really mean it. When RR says that they want to nuke Mecca, though...
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Feb 11, 2011 21:26:33 GMT -5
It's not that I disagree, it's that his actions caused harm. Harm that you could figure out would occur simply by using some fucking logic. Either Reagan was a fucking moron that should never have been in a position of power, or he didn't give a flying fuck about the little people. Allowing millions of people to come to harm through apathy isn't any less deplorable than personally killing a dozen. Which millions are we talking about? People with mental problems? Yes, simple logic would tell you that less funding for mental hospitals would mean less people who need treatment get it. By the same simple logic less funding for the military means less defense, and less people working. Same thing for any program funded by the Government. Tough decisions for lawmakers don't you think. Hard to disprove good intentions when none are stated. That and as I said, all those people intended to kill first and foremost. I don't disagree. I do think there is a world of difference between being a shitty person and being evil. Really, what resources would those be? Yes, blowing up a small village and only playing with it a little bit.
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Feb 12, 2011 0:01:18 GMT -5
It's not that I disagree, it's that his actions caused harm. Harm that you could figure out would occur simply by using some fucking logic. Either Reagan was a fucking moron that should never have been in a position of power, or he didn't give a flying fuck about the little people. Allowing millions of people to come to harm through apathy isn't any less deplorable than personally killing a dozen. Which millions are we talking about? People with mental problems? Yes, simple logic would tell you that less funding for mental hospitals would mean less people who need treatment get it. By the same simple logic less funding for the military means less defense, and less people working. Same thing for any program funded by the Government. Tough decisions for lawmakers don't you think. Finding ways to reduce military expenses isn't exactly sending a shitload of very ill people to live on the streets. Last I checked, most of the people making money through the military (either as soldiers, contractors, or whatever) have the ability to find other means of employment. Okay, in that case: What were Reagan's "good intentions" when he sent millions to go starve in the streets? I want an explicit statement from his mouth, otherwise your "stated" thing is utter horseshit. Funny thing, "evil" is subjective in many ways. Reagan may not have ordered the mentally ill be executed, but his actions did force many of them out on the streets, where they had the "joy" or struggling to get enough food to survive, find a place they wouldn't freeze to death, oh, and not fucking kill themselves because they're fucking mentally ill. You understand the concept of mental illness, yes? And that the mentally ill, even when treated, have a much higher suicide rate than the population at large? So without any sort of network for support, their condition goes untreated? Proper treatment is every bit as vital to the mentally ill as it is to people with heart problems or cancer. It kinda fucking matters a lot. If a dictator were to prevent food and medication from getting into a certain part of his country, what would you think of him? Ronald Reagan's actions achieved the same. god. damn. thing. We aren't talking people who are a bit unstable. We're talking about people who are unable to properly care for themselves. Worse than an asthmatic trying to work a job where they're in smokey conditions all day, every day. You can't step outside for fresh air when you've got a mental disorder. It doesn't fucking work like that. Really, if you want to piss me the fuck off, one of the ways to do it is trivialize mental illness. It's an awesome way to get on my bad side. I have the self-control to treat you like any other forum member with regards to any sort of official actions, but it doesn't mean I won't flame the ever-loving shit out of you in F&B. (FYI, you're stepping really fucking close to that as it is.) Advisers. You know, those things that the president has? Military generals? The most powerful military on the face of the planet, which had the capability to pull off missions where they found out what the hell was going on without needing to bomb the everliving fuck out of the area? Spy planes? His choices weren't limited to "fund terrorists" and "do nothing". He was leader of the most powerful nation on the planet. The US targeted the Taliban because it was funding terrorists. Why the fuck should Reagan funding terrorists be considered better? Because he was fighting communism? The Taliban was funding terrorists that had objectives they agreed with, so that excuse doesn't fly. Smartass.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Feb 12, 2011 3:51:09 GMT -5
I disagree. If hatred is a reasonable reponse, displaying hate is a reasonble action. It is only reasonable if you want hate back. There is a difference. Our hatred is generated by people's actions, reactive hatred would be generated by our opposition to those actions. It's easy to say that one form of hatred is silly, but the other reasonable, so long as the actions are wrong. I'm not a murderer, torturer, dictator or discriminator. And I don't support any of those things. I haven't done anything so bad as to deserve hatred, I've just disagreed with you. I would argue that there is no longer a social norm to discriminate against Jews or women. Therefore, discrimination of any kind is no longer acceptable. Tojo was actually the Japanese Prime Minister during World War Two. And therefore, what? It's acceptable? There's no evidence that he intended anything but good. By your standard, we must assume he meant it, then.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Feb 12, 2011 10:34:20 GMT -5
Finding ways to reduce military expenses isn't exactly sending a shitload of very ill people to live on the streets. Last I checked, most of the people making money through the military (either as soldiers, contractors, or whatever) have the ability to find other means of employment. Most probably could find other employment. While unemployed they still may have tough times. That and you may have a reduced overall defense. We don't have just considered military cuts. What about cuts to medical research? I'm sure you can see how those can have a wide negative effect. Or cut to infrastructure? Bridges and roads collapsing can kill people. Cutting any type of spending will have negative effects on someone. "Over 2 million hours of annual voluntary service are contributed to the libraries, museums, medical clinics, and mental health facilities of Los Angeles County. And there's a new experimental program to attract volunteers, including those retired county personnel who may want to help but didn't know how to get back into the picture. In the sheriffs department, there are 1,783 volunteers giving 417,278 hours of volunteer time per year, saving the county $5 million. The Los Angeles Police Department has a voluntary reserve program that saves the city of Los Angeles $5 million annually. In fact, one of your county supervisors Mike Antonovich, is a reserve officer in the South Pasadena Police Department and still serves 3 nights a month. This use of volunteers by the State, county, and city level is an example of government by the people in the truest sense of the word. But methods of saving must go beyond the use of volunteers. County use of prisoners to clean the beaches deserves recognition, as does a program that sounds a bit familiar, the use of able-bodied welfare recipients to perform unskilled but necessary chores. Los Angeles County government, which has a larger budget than 40 States, is demonstrating that government doesn't need more Federal mandates and more money to be more effective. Perhaps one of the most innovative of its programs is the contracting out of services with the private sector. Contracting out everything from attorney's duties to maintenance of paramedical equipment, from the collection of debts to doing custodial services, has saved the people of Los Angeles County about $10 million. Translated into real terms, that's what it would cost to build 5 neighborhood health centers or pay the salaries of 320 street patrol officers. All of this—the use of volunteers, contracting out of services, the use of welfare recipients and prisoners—is the kind of innovation that is possible when the Federal Government gets out of the way and lets local and State government do what it's supposed to do. " www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=42230&st=mental+health&st1="With protection of young people in mind, Bill declared war on crime and went on the offensive against drugs. And finally, a subject close to my heart: Bill Clements has been one of the most responsive Governors in the 50 States in our efforts to promote voluntarism. Building on that frontier spirit for which Texas is famous, he has been encouraging people to get involved, to help one another, to take more responsibility for their family and community. He's promoted the use of volunteers and direct citizen involvement in mental health and human resource programs." www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=42640&st=mental+health&st1=Remember that Reagan's whole outlook was that government was not the answer. The cuts to Mental Health Care did not happen over night. If cutting that funding makes Reagan evil what about the other people involved? What about the state legislators? They could have boosted state funding. As could local counties and cities. What about the workers. They could have volunteered and keep more people in care. Some did, are the ones who did not evil? Reagan did not prevent all funding for mental health care. He just reduced federal funding. So there is a difference between Reagan and the dictator. I'm not trivializing mental health issues. I'm sorry if it seems that way. I'm just arguing that Reagan's cut while wholly misguided, and wrong did not make him evil. No they were not limited to that. Perhaps he and his advisers though that was going to be the best way. Yes, and far before that they helped them against the USSR. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. ;D Nappy, I'm not trying to say that Reagan was a good person, or a good president. I just don't see the man being evil. If you do I know it is in part because of your very strong feeling on mental health. I'm not trying to piss you or anyone else off (well maybe ltfred a little) so if this debate is perhaps we should just agree to disagree and move on. It is not worth it.
|
|