I have a Dream...finally, fulfilled!

[Scaramouche]

So yeah. it gets my goat too. There's too much guilt by association and not enough evidence of wrongdoing flying about for my tastes.

Sadly, it's politics. And associations are relevant. That's why there are laws regarding those associations. Because politics generally involves corruption, so there must be laws to weed out the worst associations. It's why pedophiles aren't permitted to hang out in schools after getting out of prison. It's why politicians (supposedly) can't have investments in companies getting all the big government contracts. It's why people are being arrested for having financial associations with terrorists. It's why Bush's grandpappy had five companies taken off him under the Trading With The Enemy act. Associations do matter, especially on politics. While Gramps Bush may not have been a NAZI, he was associated with the NAZIs, and through association contributed to their cause, which was why he suffered a penalty.

[Don Alexander]

Now, I really don't want to get into this topic deeply, as it seems to be arousing some rather fiery emotions... :?

You're slinging a lot of shit at Obama, Scaramouche, which probably puts you at odds with most forumites. My question now is: Can you sling the same amount of shit, or more, at McCain?? I don't peg you as a right-wing republican at all, you know, so I'm sure you could deliver a caterpillar dumpster full of dirt on him.

But that would just go to show that in the world of politics, everything is highly interconnected, and it's hardly possible to rise up to the position of PoTUS by being nothing but a truly good-hearted, clean-white-sheet innocent grass roots activist or somesuch. They are all elitist. And I'm not saying that's such a bad thing. Gotta get your experience somewhere.

But maybe just a message to Pneu and Scaramouche. Turn down the volume on the ad homs, 'kay?

I'll shut up now. :roll:

[Bear]

Okay guys, while I don't mind well thought out discussions, this is becomming dangerously close to a 'I don't like x because x did X which makes x a x er' political slanging match.

Try to keep is civil guys or I'll have to shut this thread down.

At least get back to the subject matter that this was about beating racism and bigotry and bringing on change, rather then trying to stop change and cause more racism and bigotry.

[Asaryu]

It's a common misconception that stating things using large words that cost a lot on the scrabble board means that you are being rational rather than emotive. It's a dangerous assumption to make, and a condescending one at that. Perspicacity does not equate to intelligence or rationality. It's an emotive topic, and it would be remiss of anyone to assume that they are not letting their personal opinions cloud their fictitiously rational mind.

I'd like to remind everyone on this board, and particularly this thread (including myself), that this is a forum about a webcomic. Not even a particularly political one at that. We can either be civil in our mutual appreciation, or we can shut the hell up. I enjoy these forums because there are no flame wars, there is no spamming, and opinions are expressed with civility and good humour. I haven't seen anyone deliberately insult anyone else yet, and I hope it doesn't start any time soon. But the posts above are coming dangerously close.

[/moral education]

[Scaramouche]

Now, I really don't want to get into this topic deeply, as it seems to be arousing some rather fiery emotions... :?

You're slinging a lot of shit at Obama, Scaramouche, which probably puts you at odds with most forumites. My question now is: Can you sling the same amount of shit, or more, at McCain?? I don't peg you as a right-wing republican at all, you know, so I'm sure you could deliver a caterpillar dumpster full of dirt on him.

But that would just go to show that in the world of politics, everything is highly interconnected, and it's hardly possible to rise up to the position of PoTUS by being nothing but a truly good-hearted, clean-white-sheet innocent grass roots activist or somesuch. They are all elitist. And I'm not saying that's such a bad thing. Gotta get your experience somewhere.

But maybe just a message to Pneu and Scaramouche. Turn down the volume on the ad homs, 'kay?

I'll shut up now. :roll:

I don't like McCain at all. I suspect he's got a screw loose. I believe he said he'd be ok with another century of war in Iraq, which is just insane. On the other hand, I love some of his ideas regarding taxation and cracking down on the way CEOs and such abuse the corporations they're supposed to be working for. I like his desire to reduce the USA's dependence on foreign energy, but dislike his desire to do so by building nuclear reactors.

[Scaramouche]

It's a common misconception that stating things using large words that cost a lot on the scrabble board means that you are being rational rather than emotive. It's a dangerous assumption to make, and a condescending one at that. Perspicacity does not equate to intelligence or rationality. It's an emotive topic, and it would be remiss of anyone to assume that they are not letting their personal opinions cloud their fictitiously rational mind.

However, my posts have not been about claiming intelligence due to the use of big nasty words, so we can ignore that. All I've done is post the facts.

Regarding the bold section, if you wish to assert that is the case, feel free to demonstrate.

[Asaryu]

Human rationality is fictitious insofar as ALL rationality is fictitious. The human brain functions on memories, which are simply past events filtered heavily through our imagination. Rationality is a construction used to make small people feel big, and it is a myth that I do not buy into. It has been used to stifle imagination, and its lack has been used to represent the 'other' in such a way as to refuse them emotional and intellectual equality. It has been used to justify injustices, and it has even been used to prove the existence of God. Rationality is a tool, and a powerful one.

It has powerful symbolic connotations, especially in the western world, and insinuating a lack of rationality in another while positioning oneself in a fully rational discourse is a dangerous and pugnacious stance to take. Mine is a postmodern stance, but one that is easily illustrated if you need it to be. You just need an open mind.

[Scaramouche]

And now Obama is pushing the fictitious argument about Iran pursuing nuclear weapons, even though with all the whining and complaints from the USA government and others, there has still never been a single shred of evidence to support the accusations. Indeed, the USA's National Intelligence Estimate informed their government that Iran would be at least ten years away from the technology even if they wanted to do it.

[Scaramouche]

Human rationality is fictitious insofar as ALL rationality is fictitious. The human brain functions on memories, which are simply past events filtered heavily through our imagination. Rationality is a construction used to make small people feel big, and it is a myth that I do not buy into. It has been used to stifle imagination, and its lack has been used to represent the 'other' in such a way as to refuse them emotional and intellectual equality. It has been used to justify injustices, and it has even been used to prove the existence of God. Rationality is a tool, and a powerful one.

It has powerful symbolic connotations, especially in the western world, and insinuating a lack of rationality in another while positioning oneself in a fully rational discourse is a dangerous and pugnacious stance to take. Mine is a postmodern stance, but one that is easily illustrated if you need it to be. You just need an open mind.

Memory and imagination are indeed part of how the brain functions. But not all of it. There's a lot more to brains. They accept sensory input, analyse it, and use it. They perform multiple parallel assessments about all sorts of things, including sensory input, memory, imagination, logical deduction, and more.

And no, rationality is not a security blanket. it's the basic foundation of a successful thinking organism. For example, if we stick a hand in a fire enough times, our rational thought processes form associations between cause and effect. We figure it out. We form a rational connection, a meaning for what we're seeing and feeling. And it certainly shows the lie of any arguments that "rational is silly".

[Asaryu]

It seems to me that you like being contrary for the sake of it. Beyond this, I choose not to perpetuate an argument that will go nowhere. If you truly wish to discuss this, and you come with an open mind, PM me. If not, please just drop it.

[Bear]

And now Obama is pushing the fictitious argument about Iran pursuing nuclear weapons, even though with all the whining and complaints from the USA government and others, there has still never been a single shred of evidence to support the accusations. Indeed, the USA's National Intelligence Estimate informed their government that Iran would be at least ten years away from the technology even if they wanted to do it.

Actually on that We've had our own seperate intelligence that Iran with its nuclear enrichment program could quite easily produce nuclear weapons if it wanted to. So its no ficticious, its a plausable fact.

Now remember, keep this civil and to the facts or I will lock this thread.

[Scaramouche]

And now Obama is pushing the fictitious argument about Iran pursuing nuclear weapons, even though with all the whining and complaints from the USA government and others, there has still never been a single shred of evidence to support the accusations. Indeed, the USA's National Intelligence Estimate informed their government that Iran would be at least ten years away from the technology even if they wanted to do it.

Actually on that We've had our own seperate intelligence that Iran with its nuclear enrichment program could quite easily produce nuclear weapons if it wanted to. So its no ficticious, its a plausable fact.

Now remember, keep this civil and to the facts or I will lock this thread.

National Intelligence Eestimate 2007

Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities

We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program1; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons.

We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.

Tehran’s decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005. Our assessment that the program probably was halted primarily in response to international pressure suggests Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the issue than we judged previously.

We judge with moderate confidence Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame. (INR judges Iran is unlikely to achieve this capability before 2013 because of foreseeable technical and programmatic problems.) All agencies recognize the possibility that this capability may not be attained until after 2015.

We judge with high confidence that Iran will not be technically capable of producing and reprocessing enough plutonium for a weapon before about 2015.

http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf

More facts about Iran:
Some facts about Iran.
Iran is NOT making nuclear weapons.
Manufacturing excuses to hate Iran.

[Scaramouche]

It seems to me that you like being contrary for the sake of it. Beyond this, I choose not to perpetuate an argument that will go nowhere. If you truly wish to discuss this, and you come with an open mind, PM me. If not, please just drop it.

No. I simply support facts, in all things. If people post stuff that's simply wrong, I correct it with facts.

[Don Alexander]

No. I simply support facts, in all things. If people post stuff that's simply wrong, I correct it with facts.

Hrmmm, we were also once presented a bunch of fail-proof "facts" on Iraq's WMDs...

Back to funnier threads...

[Scaramouche]

No. I simply support facts, in all things. If people post stuff that's simply wrong, I correct it with facts.

Hrmmm, we were also once presented a bunch of fail-proof "facts" on Iraq's WMDs...

Back to funnier threads...

No, we weren't. There's a huge difference between facts, and some politicians claiming the existence of proof but never offering that proof.