Is George Bush the Worst?

Originally posted by Bookworm
bbarr, you are a patient man, the epitomy of grace under pressure. You counter the ravings of a silly, silly man with thought and sound arguments. But there's no reasoning with people like this. It's a hopeless case.

As quoted, it is truly a hopeless case. This thread exemplifies why I dislike arguing on the Internet. No matter how rational or cogent one's argument may be, the opposing party will NEVER back down and they simply self-rationalize with platitudes and then degenerate to personal insults.

SVY: You are being insulting, rude, and dismissive...all symptoms of someone on the defensive who has no logical place to go. Throughout this thread, you have not been personally attacked until you initiated the mud slinging. The fact that your last post is so overtly aggressive ostensibly nullifies any point that you may have been trying to make.

Congratulations on flexing your Internet biceps. We're all quite impressed.

Originally posted by Bookworm
bbarr, you are a patient man, the epitomy of grace under pressure. You counter the ravings of a silly, silly man with thought and sound arguments. But there's no reasoning with people like this. It's a hopeless case.

hhmmmm this reminds me of my games with bbarr.

but there was a point - he won!

Originally posted by StarValleyWy

The other reason being that (leaving) childhood should bring an ability to use logic.

Ha, Mike. HA! If needed I can now reiterate several of your posts, and personal messages you sent me, which claim that this belief is false. Why did you change your mind on this score?

Originally posted by UncleAdam
Well I dont know, would you happen to have a few names? i doubt it but I'd still like to see a few.

One of the most famous examples is from Chile. Salvador Allende won the Chilean elections of 1970 as a socialist candidate. In 1973 a U.S. sponsored coup toppled Allende from power, assassinated him, and put right wing dictator Augusto Pinochet in charge. Pinochet ruled Chile with an iron hand from 1973-1990. During that time he killed or tortured thousands of people.

That is just one example that they don't mention very often in your history books. There are many other examples like that where the U.S. was directly, or indirectly involved.

Originally posted by bbarr
This was taken from a recent article by Human Rights Watch:

"The use of cluster munitions in populated areas caused more civilian casualties than any other factor in the coalition´s conduct of major military operations in March and April, ...[text shortened]... eems the only suitable punishment. On that, at least, we agree.

You write: " In Saddam Hussein's case, death seems the only suitable punishment."

You've once stated that you opposed death penalty. Changed your mind on this subject ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
You write: " In Saddam Hussein's case, death seems the only suitable punishment."

You've once stated that you opposed death penalty. Changed your mind on this subject ?

After reading an account of Saddam Hussein's "rape rooms", I've decided that some people ought to put to death. This is my personal opinion, though I doubt it is philosophically defensible. The thought of someone doing that to my wife, my sister...

Anyway, what I need to study to determine whether this position is morally defensible is whether it makes sense to say that by committing a moral wrong one can forfeit one's rights. I'll keep you posted.

Originally posted by kirksey957
OK, folks, let's come clean. All this talk of Bush being stupid is really about your not agreeing with his policies. That's all. Bush will be re-elected in a landslide not because of how smart he is or inspite of how stupid he is, but because he drops the missiles with more accuracy than anyone else and he's not afraid to use them. Your beef is with the "stupidity" as you see it of the American people.

No, that's missing the point. Cheney is hated for his politics, but no one thinks he's stupid. Bush has whole books dedicated to his inability to speak.

Originally posted by richhoey
No, that's missing the point. Cheney is hated for his politics, but no one thinks he's stupid. Bush has whole books dedicated to his inability to speak.

I don't think anyone knows what Cheney's politics are. They know he ran Halliburton which means he might as well have horns growing out of his head. Hell , who could even find Cheney these days to ask him about his politics. I guess he'll come out of that cave when it gets close to election time.

Originally posted by bbarr
After reading an account of Saddam Hussein's "rape rooms", I've decided that some people ought to put to death. This is my personal opinion, though I doubt it is philosophically defensible. The thought of someone doing that to my wife, my sister...

Anyway, what I need to study to determine whether this position is morally defensible is whether it mak ...[text shortened]... e to say that by committing a moral wrong one can forfeit one's rights. I'll keep you posted.

You could make the counter-argument that death is too good for him, in which case a more imaginative (and even less philosophically defensible) punishment must be thought up. What if that South Park film had been made a few years later, and they'd forced Saddam to play himself?

Originally posted by Acolyte
You could make the counter-argument that death is too good for him, in which case a more imaginative (and even less philosophically defensible) punishment must be thought up. What if that South Park film had been made a few years later, and they'd forced Saddam to play himself?

That, along with Don Herzfeldt's 'Rejected', is the finest piece of animated cinema ever produced, including 'Bambi'. However, I fail to see how one who conceived of 'rape rooms' would find Hussein's part in 'Bigger, Longer, and Uncut' to be punishment, but then again I haven't seen it for a couple years...

Originally posted by bbarr
After reading an account of Saddam Hussein's "rape rooms", I've decided that some people ought to [b][be -ed.] put to death. This is my personal opinion, though I doubt it is philosophically defensible. The thought of someone doing ...[text shortened]... moral wrong one can forfeit one's rights. I'll keep you posted.[/b]

I'm very curious to hear your thinking.

Bennett:

Theoretical interpretations in natural science are sets of consistent ideas designed to disagree with as few observed facts as possible. Theoretical structures in mathematics are sets of ideas constructed to be internally consistent, elegant, and to fit well with other ones. Philosophy is farther-reaching. Theoretical models in philosophy can be of the 'mathematical' type or of the 'scientific type'. Specifically, ethics presents theoretical models of how one ought to act. If one is in the business of philosophically defending one's actions, then one does not consider actions that one feels to be philosophically indefensible, because that would imply that the theoretical model given by whatever ethical arguments you make is superfluous.

Second, by saying you wish for Hussein to be executed, and providing an emotional response which led to this conclusion, you are really making a very simple ethical model. So you are philosophically defending your position (strictly speaking) and then saying this can't be done.

It's a bit strange that a philosopher (and I think a skilled one) would have so little trust in his science. Perhaps there is a philosophical defense for killing Hussein, but if there isn't then why are you entertaining the idea (attempting to do what you deem impossible)?

Originally posted by bbarr
After reading an account of Saddam Hussein's "rape rooms", I've decided that some people ought to put to death. This is my personal opinion, though I doubt it is philosophically defensible. The thought of someone doing that to my wife, my sister...

Anyway, what I need to study to determine whether this position is morally defensible is whether it mak ...[text shortened]... e to say that by committing a moral wrong one can forfeit one's rights. I'll keep you posted.

Hussein is it definitely not worth to give up our standards.
Don't let your brains crumple when your heart is aching.

Fjord

Originally posted by kirksey957
I don't think anyone knows what Cheney's politics are. They know he ran Halliburton which means he might as well have horns growing out of his head. Hell , who could even find Cheney these days to ask him about his politics. I guess he'll come out of that cave when it gets close to election time.

Quite incorrect. Cheney's record as a congressman is well documented - he voted several times against affirmative action and regularly was to the right of most Republicans.

And he is quite the face of the administration, showing up on Meet the Press and other Sunday talk shows.

I'll say alot of things about Cheney, but hiding isn't one of them.

Originally posted by bbarr
Where do you get this stuff? Because I wanted Saddam removed in a manner that accorded with international law, that minimized the loss of civilian life and maximized the chance of a successful democracy being brought about in Iraq, I support Saddam. You equate a critique of unilateralism and the utilizing of imprecise military efforts with supporting Saddam. ...[text shortened]... cational merit of the school of hard knocks. This old, and you can't follow a simple argument.

Bbarr: "Because I wanted Saddam removed in a manner that accorded with international law, ..... "

I know a lot of people are stating that saddam was NOT removed according to international Law. Do you agree with them ?

Originally posted by royalchicken
I'm very curious to hear your thinking.

Bennett:

Theoretical interpretations in natural science are sets of consistent ideas designed to disagree with as few observed facts as possible. Theoretical structures in mathematics are ...[text shortened]... tertaining the idea (attempting to do what you deem impossible)?

I wouldn't support the execution of Saddam Hussein, either by the US, or an international court or the Iraqi people themselves. My position is that the death penalty is morally wrong. Nevertheless, when I introspect, I recognize that within me there is the desire for Saddam Hussein to suffer and die for what he has done. I have not tried to philosophically defend this position because I do not think there is a philosophical defense to be found. I searched for some today, but found none of them persuasive. So, when I claim that I wish Saddam to be put to death, please interpret this as an expression of the horror and disgust and desire for revenge that are elicited in me when I reflect upon his crimes. Please don't require of me that I provide a philosophical defense for a position I explicity claim has none. That would be uncharitable.