No More Bin Laden

[Lissa]

Question from an outsider:

It's a sad state of affairs when our cynicism has reached such a heinous level that we don't trust the news stories out of the US anymore. For me personally, I fully believe that US marines shot and killed Osama Bin Laden and put his remains to rest at sea. Here comes the question: How do Americans view the speed with which this ceremony has been undertaken? What we read on the intarwebs, and what is being insinuated from politicians and media this side of the pond, is that the US should publish the photos of a dead Bin Laden in order to assuage people's fears that this is indeed NOT a criminal conspiracy. The people vocal in this matter are NOT of the breed of insane conspiracy theorists who claimed GWB to be responsible for attacking the WTC, but people who - over the years - have developed a level of cynicism that makes it very difficult for them to accept the claim that Osama Bin Laden has been caught and killed, especially without any evidence.

Osama's swift burial at sea - problematic or honoriffic?

What I can't believe is people aren't believing Al'Qeda (or however it's spelled). The fact that the US and OBL's own organization are both saying he's dead should tell everyone that he's dead. Why would A'Q and US be conspiring together for something like that?

[[wcip]Angel]

That's easy to answer: People (as a general rule) are stupid.

[TheDragoon]

Osama's swift burial at sea - problematic or honoriffic?

I would say some of both but mostly honorable. It's only problematic if the terrorist organizations are able to claim that he's not dead and then leverage that to boost their membership or fundraising. I believe the actions are honorable as I believe they represent the government/military going the extra length to try and appease the Islamic people of the world.

I think that many of the people who are vocally spreading doubt about this likely have some other axe to grind with the US and are just trying to use this whole operation to paint the US (or some subset of the US) in a poor light in the media. Realistically, the US does not normally provide anything even close to DNA evidence, pictures or videos of burials to prove that they killed some particular terrorist and yet people generally don't dispute it, so why should that be expected in this case?

[--Pete]

Hi,

It's a sad state of affairs when our cynicism has reached such a heinous level that we don't trust the news stories out of the US anymore.

What is sad is that so many of the media sources of the USA have reached such a low level of ethics that doubting them in general is a reasonable position.

How do Americans view the speed with which this ceremony has been undertaken?

A mistake. A brief period of public display would have gone a long way to dispelling at least some of the noise that we're hearing about this.

... the US should publish the photos of a dead Bin Laden in order to assuage people's fears that this is indeed NOT a criminal conspiracy.

Of course. That would be iron clad proof since every copy of PhotoShop in existence has frozen since Bin Laden's death.

At any rate, it's too late to fish him back out. Those, like you and I, who think he was most likely killed just as reported don't need additional proof (unless some real evidence to the contrary is found). Those who find conspiracies in every closet will not be convinced by any level of proof. The question is somewhat moot.

The best would have been a captured, tried, and executed Bin Laden. That would (mostly) have defused many of the tales and rumors going around.

--Pete

[Kevin]

The topic came up at lunch today when I put the silly IT joke of rm -rf /bin/.laden up on a white board. My director (so 2 levels above me, my bosses boss) said "This whole thing is just a stupid political move by Obama. Bin Laden isn't dead, he just wanted to be able to mark off the check box on his campaign promises."

I work with some highly educated people, since I work at an engineering university, in the Information Technology department. It's odd in that most of them are rabid Republicans and many are Tea Party activists (it's more normal for universities to be staffed by more liberal leaning folks). Many of them love Fox News, and I've had conversations that had to explain that, no there won't be "death panels" here is the relevant section in the bill that explains that the insurance would cover end of life counseling that quite a few private insurance companies cover. Having dealt with the passing of 3 grandparents in the past 2 years I'm very glad they do, because it's a huge help to have that information available to make sound decisions on care. But that became Death Panels!!!!!!!!ZOMG!!!!!! Government will KILL YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! When I explained what it really was, several of my co-workers were amazed, because they had had relatives receive that counseling before and were also happy to have gotten it.

So it's not just cynicism. The whole winner takes all political battlefield leads people to not want to actually think. I had a co-worker spend 20 minutes complaining about how awful a single payer system would be. He wasn't against government health care, he was a big fan of how Sweden does things, "because there the government collects the money but pays private insurance companies to just simplify the process and make sure everyone is insured." I told him to go google single payer health care systems, because that is what Sweden is.

I know I'm getting off track. But these people aren't morons. They do have critical thinking skills, I've seen those skills in action and applied to work functions. I know someone with a PhD who still thinks the moon landing was faked. People latch onto beliefs and they don't let them go.

Obama is evil, he is ruining the country, you can't believe anything he says.

George Bush is evil, he is ruining the country, you can't believe anything he says.

It takes effort to think. It really does. That is part of why I get paid a decent salary to sit at a computer all day and type, because my job requires me to think a lot. Not everyone can do it. So there are times when I don't want to think, I rely on someone else to tell me an answer. This often works very well for me because I trust the people that are doing the thinking for me. Politics is an area when many people don't want to think, there are many people out there that realize this and they take advantage of it. It's not that these people are stupid. In fact it can be a good strategy to not apply too much energy to an area if spending that energy somewhere else nets you bigger overall gains (be that in happiness, wealth, whatever).

The rule isn't people are stupid, the rule is "People (as a general rule) try to get the most with the least amount of effort." Thinking takes effort. Or I suppose that should just be "People are lazy". Since that says it in fewer words.

So the answer, [wcip]Angel, is yes, his swift burial at sea is problematic here in the US. There are a significant number of people that simply don't believe it. Some are just cynical, some for political views, some because they don't want to think, some because they are angry at the high price of gasoline and other problems in the economy and anyone in power who hasn't fixed this yet must be an idiot and can't be trusted.

[Taem]

I'm commenting to you just to say I loved your reply!

[DeeBye]

Those who find conspiracies in every closet will not be convinced by any level of proof.

This is the key to this debate about releasing photos to appease the skeptics. They will not be satisfied by photos. They will find a way to disbelieve them, and voice it loudly. It's almost exactly like the Obama birth certificate circus.

I wonder how many of the people wanting the photos of a dead Bin Laden want to see them as proof of his death, and how many of them want to see them as a sort of a "trophy". I think I know the answer.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Politics is an area when many people don't want to think, ...

It's not that these people are stupid.

In fact it can be a good strategy to not apply too much energy to an area ...

This bothers me. I don't believe that people should be forced to pay attention to politics. Indeed, I don't even think some people *could* pay attention to politics even if threatened.

Indeed, the people who do not pay attention to politics may not be stupid. However, if they don't realize that by not paying attention and still voting, they are being someone's patsies, then they are stupid. Or if they don't realize that if their apathy extends to not voting, they are letting others determine the government under which they live, then they are stupid.

It is only the people who do not pay attention to politics in full understanding of the effects of that attitude who are not stupid. And I'm sure there is such a person out there, somewhere.

I've said it before, I'll keep it short this time. The vote should be earned. And when used, it should be used correctly -- as a measure of the voter's informed opinion and not as a mindless regurgitation of some group's agenda.

There needs to be a distinction between those who are willing and able to accept the responsibility of running a country (citizens) and those who only wish to reap the benefits of living there (legal residents). Just how this is to be done is a difficult matter.

--Pete

[eppie]

Hi,



In the modern Western milieu, religion is just one of many characteristics that distinguishes mostly similar individuals. In the Islamic countries, religion is the defining characteristic. And that makes Islam much different.

--Pete

And indeed what is happening is that the difference is culture. Not religion.
African Christians also often have very strict regulations that make it more of a way of life than just something to believe in.

I mean even in europe you see in some countries how 'defining' catholisism is (Italy for example) and I think the same goes for some midwestern states in the US.

In every country or every part of a country that has some kind of closed society and a somewhat lower cultural, social and economic development standard religion can become defining and will if it has the possibilities continuously try and increase its power.

In Holland we had a government a few years ago in which for the first time there was a kind of real christian majority (with one of the smaller more extreme parties being involved) and directly you saw that they started to break down our liberal laws, on euthenasia, abortion, drugs etc. (Something which obviously had strong support from the islamic comunity as well by the way).

Our problem in the west is not with Islam it is with too oldfashioned and traditional cultures.

[Kevin]

Hi,

Politics is an area when many people don't want to think, ...

It's not that these people are stupid.

In fact it can be a good strategy to not apply too much energy to an area ...

This bothers me. I don't believe that people should be forced to pay attention to politics. Indeed, I don't even think some people *could* pay attention to politics even if threatened.

I don't disagree. Just like there are people who couldn't understand a car if they tried, or computer programming. So does it make sense for them to apply a lot of energy towards those things when they are fantastic with food, or physics? It doesn't make them stupid. Most of my post was speaking of specific people when I was talking about stupidity. They aren't people that I would normally call stupid. I gave examples that showed the worst in them too. Sometimes, even with politics, they are savvy and make very coherent arguments. But sometimes they just seem to miss the boat. Perhaps that is stupid of them, perhaps I just don't understand the definition of the word stupid, but it seems more like ignorance, potentially willful ignorance at that.

Indeed, the people who do not pay attention to politics may not be stupid. However, if they don't realize that by not paying attention and still voting, they are being someone's patsies, then they are stupid. Or if they don't realize that if their apathy extends to not voting, they are letting others determine the government under which they live, then they are stupid.

Is being a patsy or follower always stupid? Am I stupid for working for someone else, following their instructions, and not running my own business? Perhaps. But I've run my own business before. I'm happier now that I'm not. Isn't a representative democracy supposed to help people have a voice in government but free them, to an extent, from the energy requirements of having to be an expert. Is it stupid to believe that if someone generally seems to have the same ideals as you that voting for them should get results that you would find favorable? Is it stupid or is it ignorant? Or is it simply lazy? I wasn't trying to be insulting when I called my co-workers rapid republicans or tea party activists. Many of them have relatively sound reasoning for it, they believe in the pro business platform, they think less regulation and freer markets will serve our country better. They feel that retirement should be privatized and not the role of a government. Some of them hold these beliefs but also feel that marriage should be a religious thing only, and that for the purposes of the law there should only be civil unions or something of that like that describes a partnership for strictly legal matters. A marriage is something a church performs and the government doesn't recognize or care about it, they care about the legal stuff. Some of them may also think that abortion should be legal, though regulated. Some are staunch pro-life.

I've said it before, I'll keep it short this time. The vote should be earned. And when used, it should be used correctly -- as a measure of the voter's informed opinion and not as a mindless regurgitation of some group's agenda.

I don't disagree. I really don't. But I also don't assume that just because they mindlessly regurgitate that they aren't serving their own best interests either. They might not be, they probably aren't. But they could be. Or they may just feel it's the lesser of two evils and spreading the propaganda helps them. Perhaps not consciously, but on some level.

The winner take all system can often mean that even if they do pay attention, even if they try to vote for what they want, they might not get it, even if the person they want wins. I've NEVER seen a candidate who matches more than about 60% of what I actually believe in. I watch people try to constantly improve something, because they feel they have to do something. But you don't, you know. Sometimes great leadership is in fact maintaining the status quo. Because sometimes the status quo is pretty spot on. I also understand that if I don't have an answer, and I know I'm smart, that it's very likely they don't either. So sometimes they are just trying something to see what the hell happens. The scary thing is that it's an experiment that affects hundreds, millions, or billions of lives. But that is human nature too. It's wired in us somewhere to tinker, to try to make things better or different, even if that isn't in our best interests.

There needs to be a distinction between those who are willing and able to accept the responsibility of running a country (citizens) and those who only wish to reap the benefits of living there (legal residents). Just how this is to be done is a difficult matter.

I don't necessarily disagree with this either. I think most everyone would be happier in this situation, but the chances for abuse are of course still there. I'm not sure that the best leaders are the ones that want to be leaders. Sometimes they just want power. But I don't know of a good way to identify people that would be good leaders if they don't have the desire to put themselves forward in the first place.

I also wouldn't call the legal non voting residents of a country that people that earned the vote and people that didn't, stupid either. Ignorant, or differently talented from politics and governing, or yes potentially in fact stupid. Of course it is setting up a system that gives a clear power distinction and that can easily lead to abuse, because of another characteristic of our nature. We like to have security, and power brings security. We have some altruistic tendencies, but you can often link that back to security. I know it's not that simple, but I find that it's sometimes better to be simple.

I want people to think. I try to get them to all the time. I want people to think about politics as well, because that has a major impact on my life. But I know I don't always apply critical thinking to everything I do. I get emotional, and sometimes that is about major decisions too. I try not hold others to a higher standard than myself. Perhaps I am stupid and just missing the point. I accept that.

Part of the reason I'm making this reply too is that the word stupid is combative to me. I know you, Pete, are not being intentionally or unintentionally combative. You are behaving as I have always known you to behave, and I'm also interesting in learning you opinion, and insights on this topic.

Part of my gripe is everything has become combative lately. That happens when people are scared. The economy is still unstable, the terror threat isn't fully gone. People feel less secure, that's scary. When people are insecure they become even more self focused, they are more likely to fight to protect themselves to try and claim something to battle for security. It's a survival skill that has served us well as species. But it doesn't always lead to the best decisions. So for my part I've noticed I try to defuse that and get people to apply logic where I can. I don't have the skill or the will to do it on a large scale. But I get worried about the struggles our country is involved in right now because the powerful are much less affected, and heck can even profit and increase their power, in times of instability.

So yes an earned voting privilege system would probably be pretty helpful right now, as I would help the people who could vote would people that could prove to keep a level head when things aren't stable. The defacto system we have now where a minority or a small majority are voting isn't working. It doesn't represent the real desires or best interests of anyone but those who get elected. Two "parties" paint strokes too broadly. People that do pay attention and understand the issues can feel disenfranchised and stop participating. Others simply vote emotionally. An emotional voter isn't a stupid person, they just aren't a wise voter.

And I lost my internet connection while typing this. I hope I'll be able to post it eventually.

[kandrathe]

Our problem in the west is not with Islam it is with too old fashioned and traditional cultures.

Why do you assume that newer is better? The same rush to progress that wiped out indigenous people, and clear cut virgin forests, is still at play today only its in perhaps in poorly thought through changes in gene manipulation, chemical additives in food, or in production or use of materials.

I'm probably one of those people you'd lump in with the "bad" Islam. I've grown more conservative as I get aged, but it's more a conservatism in realizing what we're destroying and what we've lost. And, I'm thinking about culture, art, language, and peoples experiences. I value the process of life, and the possibilities that a life can accumulate and inform the present and future. In your accounting, it seems people are good as long as they are willing to adopt your moral compass. Religion becomes a way to justify forcing people to comply with one particular world view, and this application of force is just as flawed as is the one in your more humanist, more atheistic culture.

So, what if... Allowing babies to be killed in the womb really is a murder? And, I'm not talking a religious dogma here, be it Islam, or Christianity. Our societies all prohibit the killing of innocents, and some even prohibit the killing of the extremely malevolent. Obviously, the baby is not much different a week before delivery, than a week after delivery. So, placement within the womb is not an indication of the legality to terminate. Then typically the debate devolves into which body functions must be operational, which is problematic because the two most usual integral parts, the beating heart, and the brain are formed very early. Often by the time a women realizes she is pregnant (5 - 6 weeks), the fetus has already formed into a human child. At this point, disposing of it merely due to the inconvenience seems to me a bit morally callous. The same argument (inconvenient or a waste of resources) could be made for many adults, whether they be mentally challenged, elderly, or just slackers.

The US is pretty split on many of these types of issues, but the "science" of the issue has very little to do to inform the debates. For the "traditionalists" the issue has more to do with giving one person the right to terminate the life of another person, or even in allowing a person to self terminate. They'd listen to the science of how the embryo develops, but at a larger level it is irrelevant to these issues. This is not merely a Christianity, or Islam thing. Taboo's exist in almost every culture on the planet regarding the taking of lives. Generally, in all these cultures, the moral side involves preserving life, and the dark side involves terminating life. Infanticide, and euthanasia are issues for a society to resolve, barring all religious dogma, since "living" is fundamental to participation. These are also groups within the society who have the least capability of protecting themselves from the tyranny of the majority. It's not much of a step from this, to relieving the inconvenient mentally infirm from their suffering existence (and saving us lots of wasted time and money).

In Holland we had a government a few years ago in which for the first time there was a kind of real christian majority (with one of the smaller more extreme parties being involved) and directly you saw that they started to break down our liberal laws, on euthanasia, abortion, drugs etc. (Something which obviously had strong support from the Islamic community as well by the way).

Extending the issue of rights further, I ask, what gives you (whether it be a person or government) the right to tell me what to do? This is an issue irregardless of political party or persuasion. One side will be complicit in allowing government to use coercive force to dictate compliance to their world view, but then are shocked when those same mechanisms they helped to build are used against their world view. You were fine for all those years where they suffered the injustice (in their minds) of the laws to which they had objections. As GG alluded to in his description of his conservative co-workers, my question is, such as with marriage, or with rearing children, what business is this of my government? Now, if they were being harmed somehow, the society has the need to protect its members (e.g. murder, assaults, torture, other abuses and exploitations). So for me, with marriage, or drug laws, the problem/questions I have are that they exist at all. Is it necessary, or is it meddling in how other people live? Why should we care that some people want to have many spouses?

To bring another real world example in how well intentioned laws, just should not be; here in the US we have the Patriot Act, passed as a knee jerk reaction to 911. It basically gives the government the power to spy on anything they deem of national security interest, even to the point of requiring libraries to reveal what books you check out. It is a {potential} mechanism of totalitarianism, and it doesn't matter who wields that power, it is unchecked and undermines our freedoms. The real patriots, like Benjamin Franklin, are spinning in their graves.

For me, I would prefer that the bonds which sew together a society be only those where without them the society falls apart. Of course, you'd need to account for those who are unable to care for themselves, but in general, I'd like to see the capable in our society carry their own water. And, yes (for GG), that means health care, and retirement as well. Let people take care of themselves (privatize), but create a need based safety net to keep people from suffering (basic food, housing, medical), even if it is from their own bad decisions.

And, I believe the opposite case is more at play, where the bonds of society are vast, strict and over controlling, creating a society of kept individuals, whose diversity of thought become an obstacle, and where their lives become cheap and disposable. This outcome is inevitable when you "enslave" your own people under the yoke of government, whether it be exercised by Washington, Amsterdam, or Tehran.

More directly on the topic; I have no issue with Islam, or any religious groups as long as politically and as expressed in their laws they respect the rights of people who are not like them to have freedoms within the society (which may or may not be dominated by them). OBL was the figurehead of a movement which represents an extremely repressive world view, and one that is in drastic conflict with Western values. We shouldn't confuse the pro-democracy movements around the Islamic world as any attempt at liberalization or embracing individual freedom. I fear they are empowering themselves to exchange their dictatorships for theocracies. The US AG has stated his legal opinion that the US had the right to invade Pakistan, and kill a Saudi Citizen for his involvement in the mass murder of US citizens. It appears that there was only the slightest interest in actually arresting him. Objectively, the outcome we have, including the rapid burial at sea, are well thought out to shape the opinions both for ourselves, our allies, and our enemies. I guess my concern here is that our societies are avoiding the broader discussion about the contrast of cultures. Our debate is being done with extraordinary rendition, torture, endless detention, CIA drone strikes, invading the privacy of all world citizens, and ultimately swift executions without trial. And... no one sees a problem with this?

[--Pete]

Hi,

Just like there are people who couldn't understand a car if they tried, or computer programming. So does it make sense for them to apply a lot of energy towards those things ...

My point isn't that these *people* are stupid. It's that they shouldn't be repairing cars or programming computers. And if they insist on trying, then that is stupid.

... if they don't realize ... they are ... patsies, then they are stupid.

... if they don't realize ... they are letting others determine the government ... then they are stupid.

Is being a patsy or follower always stupid?

That's not what I said. I stripped what I did say down to make it easier to parse. It is the failure to realize that makes them stupid. If one choses to be a patsy or a follower, then that is their choice (although they may use some other name for what they've chosen). And it might even be the best choice for that person in those circumstances.

I've said it before, I'll keep it short this time. The vote should be earned. And when used, it should be used correctly -- as a measure of the voter's informed opinion and not as a mindless regurgitation of some group's agenda.

I don't disagree. I really don't. But I also don't assume that just because they mindlessly regurgitate that they aren't serving their own best interests either.

There lies a lot of the problem. Those that do not understand the issues see only to their best interests, and often not even that far. While those that understand the issue might not be willing to do what is best for the country, they at least will have an idea of what that might be. Since what is best for the country as a whole is often best for each of us as individuals in the long run, enlightened self interest will often accomplishes the needed good. But for a person to support enlightened self interest, that person first needs to be enlightened -- to know more than "give me more and tax me less".

The winner take all system can often mean that even if they do pay attention, even if they try to vote for what they want, they might not get it, even if the person they want wins. I've NEVER seen a candidate who matches more than about 60% of what I actually believe in.

Yep, but a different topic, worthy of a thread of its own at a time of its own. Almost everything about the structure of the federal government of the USA needs fixing, either because it was ill conceived when originally designed (because of compromise or ignorance -- after all, the founding fathers had nothing really successful to base it on), or because the circumstances that made it reasonable at one time have since long changed (like the electoral college or the Senate). Double representation based on location (a representative from your district and a senator from your state) and no representation based on outlook is not the ideal government.

I watch people try to constantly improve something, because they feel they have to do something. But you don't, you know. Sometimes great leadership is in fact maintaining the status quo. Because sometimes the status quo is pretty spot on.

I agree. However, I also feel that an eye has to be kept on that status quo. Great leadership also recognizing that something has changed in the circumstances and so something might have to change in our actions. And always keeping an eye on that "might".

I also understand that if I don't have an answer, and I know I'm smart, that it's very likely they don't either.

There's some truth to that, but also some falsehood. I go to a doctor precisely because I don't have an answer but I expect him to have one, not because he's smarter than me (odds are good he's not) but because he's an expert. Same can be said for a lawyer or an accountant. The point is that one of the advantages of a representative democracy over a direct democracy is that the job of running the government is left to the people who should be experts on that job. It is similar to the captain/sailing master situation of years ago: the captain tells the sailing master *where* he needs to be and when. The sailing master then makes it happen.

There needs to be a distinction between those who are willing and able to accept the responsibility of running a country (citizens) and those who only wish to reap the benefits of living there (legal residents). Just how this is to be done is a difficult matter.

I don't necessarily disagree with this either. I think most everyone would be happier in this situation, but the chances for abuse are of course still there.

Of course. The requirements must be equal for all, equally onerous for all, and equally applied to all. They must be based only on criteria that are directly pertinent. And they must be evaluated objectively. Multiple paths, each appropriate to specific circumstances, must be available for anyone wanting to transition from resident to citizen. And the status should not be permanent or immutable. There should be requirements for maintaining citizenship which, if not met, cause the individual to revert to resident. That reversion should also be permitted as a voluntary decision.

But all that is secondary. Our present system was not always as just as it is now, and probably could use a few changes to make it even more just. Before we talk about tuning the engine, it might be good to get a car.

I'm not sure that the best leaders are the ones that want to be leaders. Sometimes they just want power. But I don't know of a good way to identify people that would be good leaders if they don't have the desire to put themselves forward in the first place.

I've said, in the past, that those who want to be elected officials (also police officers) should be disqualified precisely because they want the job. Of course, that is cynical hyperbole -- but not too far off the truth, unfortunately. It is a Catch 22 situation. Those who want a job that gives them power will often do a poor job because they want it for the wrong reasons and those that don't want such a job will often do a poor job because they didn't want it in the first place.

What needs to be found are those who want the job for the good they can do or those who, not wanting the job, will do it because of their sense of responsibility. Identifying these types may be difficult, at first, but their actions will define them. Then we need a system that eliminates the bad and keeps the good instead of just enshrining incumbents.

Again, another interesting topic which would take us far afield.

I also wouldn't call the legal non voting residents of a country that people that earned the vote and people that didn't, stupid either.

I don't believe I did. An indifference to politics is not stupidity, per se. One might simply not much care.

We have some altruistic tendencies, but you can often link that back to security.

As Heinlein has often pointed out, altruism should be approached with suspicion. Informed self interest, on the other hand, often looks like altruism on the surface, but is a much better basis for any decision.

I want people to think. I try to get them to all the time. I want people to think about politics as well, because that has a major impact on my life.

Me, too. Which is why I like this site and the few others where this sometimes happens. All too often another of Heinlein's dictums comes to mind: "Never attempt to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig."

Part of the reason I'm making this reply too is that the word stupid is combative to me.

My apologies, I did not intend to offend. Especially not to offend you, one who's opinions I respect. Feel free to replace it with anything you wish that has the meaning of "making poor decisions or engaging in self destructive action which should have been prevented by common sense and native intelligence." For example, a 'normal' teen jumping off a building into a swimming pool because they saw it on some TV show is stupid. The same thing done by a five year old is not stupid, although it is unfortunate.

Part of my gripe is everything has become combative lately. That happens when people are scared. The economy is still unstable, the terror threat isn't fully gone. People feel less secure, that's scary. When people are insecure they become even more self focused, they are more likely to fight to protect themselves to try and claim something to battle for security. It's a survival skill that has served us well as species. But it doesn't always lead to the best decisions. So for my part I've noticed I try to defuse that and get people to apply logic where I can. I don't have the skill or the will to do it on a large scale. But I get worried about the struggles our country is involved in right now because the powerful are much less affected, and heck can even profit and increase their power, in times of instability.

So yes an earned voting privilege system would probably be pretty helpful right now, as I would help the people who could vote would people that could prove to keep a level head when things aren't stable. The defacto system we have now where a minority or a small majority are voting isn't working. It doesn't represent the real desires or best interests of anyone but those who get elected. Two "parties" paint strokes too broadly. People that do pay attention and understand the issues can feel disenfranchised and stop participating. Others simply vote emotionally. An emotional voter isn't a stupid person, they just aren't a wise voter.

I'm pretty much going to let this go, mostly because I feel that way, a lot, myself. I'm like a 3.5 pound pull gun with 3.4 pounds on the trigger. One comment: I don't think there is any such thing as a stupid person. I think people (even highly intelligent people) occasionally do and say stupid things.

--Pete

[Kevin]

My point isn't that these *people* are stupid. It's that they shouldn't be repairing cars or programming computers. And if they insist on trying, then that is stupid.

You're right of course and I'm not sure how I did completely miss your point in your initial post. I think I got zeroed in on something that wasn't there because of false trigger. Which covers a lot of the rest of your post as well so I'm going to snip a bunch basically because I did miss the point and you were successful in clarifying it for me. To skip to your last bit, yeah I'm stupid, but sometimes I do stupid things too.

The rest is snipped because I find I mostly agree and while there are points I would like to discuss I also agree I've gone far enough afield already with much of this and don't need to go farther now.

Thanks for you patience with me and taking the time to clarify something that now that I see it I'm not sure how I missed it in the first place. Enlightenment can be like that though.

[eppie]

Our problem in the west is not with Islam it is with too old fashioned and traditional cultures.

Why do you assume that newer is better? The same rush to progress that wiped out indigenous people, and clear cut virgin forests, is still at play today only its in perhaps in poorly thought through changes in gene manipulation, chemical additives in food, or in production or use of materials.

OK, no I don't generally assume newer is better. But I assume liberal societies better than societies that consider women 2nd grade citizens for example.

I'm probably one of those people you'd lump in with the "bad" Islam. I've grown more conservative as I get aged, but it's more a conservatism in realizing what we're destroying and what we've lost. And, I'm thinking about culture, art, language, and peoples experiences. I value the process of life, and the possibilities that a life can accumulate and inform the present and future.

So not the normal accepted kind of American conservative, but more conservative in certain topics.......so that is exactly as I am.

In your accounting, it seems people are good as long as they are willing to adopt your moral compass.

My moral compass is not to hurt other people and lot other people decide for themselves what they want to do with their lives.......so yes.

Religion becomes a way to justify forcing people to comply with one particular world view, and this application of force is just as flawed as is the one in your more humanist, more atheistic culture.

Well no. If I am for euthanasia it doesn't mean I want to euthanize people, it means I want to give them the chance to choose this path if THEY want to.

So, what if... Allowing babies to be killed in the womb really is a murder? And, I'm not talking a religious dogma here, be it Islam, or Christianity. Our societies all prohibit the killing of innocents, and some even prohibit the killing of the extremely malevolent. Obviously, the baby is not much different a week before delivery, than a week after delivery. So, placement within the womb is not an indication of the legality to terminate. Then typically the debate devolves into which body functions must be operational, which is problematic because the two most usual integral parts, the beating heart, and the brain are formed very early. Often by the time a women realizes she is pregnant (5 - 6 weeks), the fetus has already formed into a human child. At this point, disposing of it merely due to the inconvenience seems to me a bit morally callous. The same argument (inconvenient or a waste of resources) could be made for many adults, whether they be mentally challenged, elderly, or just slackers.

If you seriously want to discuss this with me you should not use sentence like '1 week before birth' and ' disposing merely due to inconvenience'. Your poisoning the discussion with fake arguments.

The US is pretty split on many of these types of issues, but the "science" of the issue has very little to do to inform the debates. For the "traditionalists" the issue has more to do with giving one person the right to terminate the life of another person, or even in allowing a person to self terminate.

Yes because this person (the mother) really has fun 'terminating the life of another person (her unborn child). Again if you seriously want to discuss this point you should not write down these scandalous and insulting phrases. The only thing you show when writing these things is not being capable of empathy. I 'know' you and know this is not the fact so please stop writing these things.

They'd listen to the science of how the embryo develops, but at a larger level it is irrelevant to these issues. This is not merely a Christianity, or Islam thing. Taboo's exist in almost every culture on the planet regarding the taking of lives. Generally, in all these cultures, the moral side involves preserving life, and the dark side involves terminating life. Infanticide, and euthanasia are issues for a society to resolve, barring all religious dogma, since "living" is fundamental to participation. These are also groups within the society who have the least capability of protecting themselves from the tyranny of the majority. It's not much of a step from this, to relieving the inconvenient mentally infirm from their suffering existence (and saving us lots of wasted time and money).

Again, your opinion is troubled by the propaganda of fox news. Just like earlier written in this thread (meat or gnollguy I believe) people really think euthanasia is forced upon people which is so not true. And also the mother (parents) should have the right to choose what's right for her child. Everyone can see that the injustice done when aborting does not come close to the injustice of being an unwanted abused child.

Extending the issue of rights further, I ask, what gives you (whether it be a person or government) the right to tell me what to do?

Indeed nothing. And that is why I am for the right to euthanasia and abortion. And against religious nutjobs telling other people what to do.

Why should we care that some people want to have many spouses?

Because this is inequality. You agree with the fact that men have a god given power over women.

the yoke of government, whether it be exercised by Washington, Amsterdam, or Tehran.

The dutch government resides in the Hague.

More directly on the topic; I have no issue with Islam, or any religious groups as long as politically and as expressed in their laws they respect the rights of people who are not like them to have freedoms within the society (which may or may not be dominated by them).

I agree. Sadly there are very little examples of this being really true. Not even in Holland, Denmark or Sweden. Maybe in France.

[--Pete]

Hi,

To skip to your last bit, yeah I'm stupid, but sometimes I do stupid things too.

I hope you accidentally left out a "not" between the "I'm" and the "stupid". Because, if you are stupid, you've done a fine job of hiding it.

Thanks for you patience with me and taking the time to clarify something that now that I see it I'm not sure how I missed it in the first place. Enlightenment can be like that though.

No thanks necessary. To clarify my position for you makes me clarify it for myself. Sometimes enlightenment comes from what others tell you, sometimes from what you tell others. The only path away from enlightenment is, IMO, refusal to discuss and consider other opinions.

--Pete

Random thought: Pandora is in the background. Ingrid Michaelson is covering Can't Help Falling in Love. She's got a nice reading voice. Does she ever actually sing?

[--Pete]

Hi,

I'm going to stay out of this mine field in a quagmire you two are setting up. But I just have to comment on this:

Why should we care that some people want to have many spouses?

Because this is inequality. You agree with the fact that men have a god given power over women.

In context, yeah. But as presented, it could be {one man, multiple women}, {one woman, multiple men}, {multiple men}, {multiple women}, {multiple men, multiple women} in a circle, line, or other arrangement, with or without rules about alternating the order of accepting new partners or about the number permitted at one time.

Basically, why should anyone care what relationships adults form with each other? As long as they either have no children or provide for those children, it is nobody else's business (and this includes the tax collector, who should neither penalize nor reward a group for its size).

--Pete

[Kevin]

I hope you accidentally left out a "not" between the "I'm" and the "stupid". Because, if you are stupid, you've done a fine job of hiding it.

It was actually intentionally left off, but done so to look accidental. I'm well known for leaving words out of things I type or write. Even when I proofread I still can have a blind spot and read what I intended to write even with the proofing (though I've learned techniques that help me not do that). In this case though I thought it would be a nice way to clearly illustrate that intended point of the statement.

Hi,

I'm going to stay out of this mine field in a quagmire you two are setting up. But I just have to comment on this:

Why should we care that some people want to have many spouses?

Because this is inequality. You agree with the fact that men have a god given power over women.

In context, yeah. But as presented, it could be {one man, multiple women}, {one woman, multiple men}, {multiple men}, {multiple women}, {multiple men, multiple women} in a circle, line, or other arrangement, with or without rules about alternating the order of accepting new partners or about the number permitted at one time.

Basically, why should anyone care what relationships adults form with each other? As long as they either have no children or provide for those children, it is nobody else's business (and this includes the tax collector, who should neither penalize nor reward a group for its size).

--Pete

I agree with that and my co-worker who says marriage is a church thing, it shouldn't have an legal bearing. The legal things should be handled with a legal contract, be that a civil union, or whatever you want to call it. Those legal issues I care about aren't taxes, it's property rights, insurance benefits, financial accounts, etc. But that is more of a business side of things, just like when companies or individuals enter business contracts. Having a legal union that is what many folks think of as marriage makes sense. Though I agree it shouldn't affect how people are taxed.

The arguments on marriage often end up being that families that aren't a single mother and single father can endanger the "healthy" development of a child and since a child is in danger we need a source of authority to step in and fix it. Those arguments are very counterable in my opinion but I'm not going to get into that here.

[Ashock]

There needs to be a distinction between those who are willing and able to accept the responsibility of running a country (citizens) and those who only wish to reap the benefits of living there (legal residents). Just how this is to be done is a difficult matter.

--Pete

Starship Troopers - the movie.

[--Pete]

Hi,

There needs to be a distinction between those who are willing and able to accept the responsibility of running a country (citizens) and those who only wish to reap the benefits of living there (legal residents). Just how this is to be done is a difficult matter.

Starship Troopers - the movie.

Also the book. It's too simple in the book and even simpler in the movie, but it is a start.

--Pete

[DeeBye]

Stolen from Reddit:

Apparently Obama's birth certificate was Bin Laden's last horcrux.