Japan vs Iraq

RolandTD20Kdrummer

sponger wrote:

I know you want so badly to have the last word. At least give yourself the credit of doing so without so obviously trying to change the subject with your disturbingly slanted perspectives.

say wha? You are fitting my original perception of you like a glove...oh well...

gue_barium

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

straight on to about me eh...haha predictable...

Hey Chachi don't be so cool if you can help it. lol...

powerhit one day.

you, me.
blue skies,
tennis.

gue_barium

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

say wha? You are fitting my original perception of you like a glove...oh well...

just tennis.

no glove fittings.

of any kind.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

gue_barium wrote:

just tennis.

no glove fittings.

of any kind.

Aaaaaaahahhahaaha....

I'm up for that. My only condition we say nothing or zero instead of love...

gue_barium

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Aaaaaaahahhahaaha....

I'm up for that. My only condition we say nothing or zero instead of love...

I can go for that. Then again, if we say "love", we'll get a laugh out of it.

Since, especially, it will be referenced to your score so often.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

gue_barium wrote:

I can go for that. Then again, if we say "love", we'll get a laugh out of it.

Since, especially, it will be referenced to your score so often.

Ohhh ouch...heh quite possible. But I have to warn you my Grandfather built his own tennis court when I was 5 and I used to watch him play all the time...just so you know in advance. I also wear a pleated skirt when I play....is that going to be a problem?

gue_barium

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Ohhh ouch...heh quite possible. But I have to warn you my Grandfather built his own tennis court when I was 5 and I used to watch him play all the time...just so you know in advance. I also wear a pleated skirt when I play....is that going to be a problem?

Only if you have long, blonde hair.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

gue_barium wrote:

Only if you have long, blonde hair.

Actually I don't do wigs anymore...I found it very hard to concentrate during my local games. Away games were fine no one really noticed me and gawked persistently whilst scratching their heads. Very distracting. I always learned from the Royal Tannenbaum's that you have to feel the Tennis....be the tennis.

Maybe we can hook up with some court-side bunnies for a power hit doubles match. I trust you can play bad enough for the sake of getting laid?

gue_barium

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Actually I don't do wigs anymore...I found it very hard to concentrate during my local games. Away games were fine no one really noticed me and gawked persistently whilst scratching their heads. Very distracting. I always learned from the Royal Tannenbaum's that you have to feel the Tennis....be the tennis.

Maybe we can hook up with some court-side bunnies for a power hit doubles match. I trust you can play bad enough for the sake of getting laid?

I will second serve my first serve for such.

sponger

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

say wha? You are fitting my original perception of you like a glove...oh well...

That isn't saying much based on your posts in this thread so far. You should honestly look at how you have this tendency to say one thing and mean another, and then backtrack over it after being called on it. You really don't have a full understanding of your own point of view, as evidenced by your sloppy stances. I'm only trying to help.

sponger

So like, what I'm noticing in this thread is that people hate war, superpower aggression, lies...etc., and so they feel obligated to hastily assume that the outcome in the middle east is a negative one so as to justify the aforementioned points of disdain.

But, what is being overlooked is that even if the outcome in the middle east is a positive, that does not magically justify US aggression and so forth and so on. Such a justification would be a case of the ends justifying the means, and it is ethics 101 that the ends do not justify the means.

However, I understand that it is a hard argument to make if for some reason is it determined that everyone lived happily ever after. But, again, that does not justify playing the statistics game and making wild projections when it comes to the welfare of the people in question.

It takes guts to say that whatever the outcome in the middle may be, the truth is that the immoralities of the recent invasions should still not go unnoticed.

catefrances

sponger wrote:

catefrances was saying that the taliban will eventually progress just as christanity progressed.

i said not so because the taliban intentionally regressed.

if you use the amish to substantiate catefrance's projection, then you imply that the amish will eventually progress into modern day christianity....if one were to call that a progression.

oh i see, so religions and the exponents of said religions can't falter before regaining their progressive step, even if their regression was deliberate?

and what are you psychic? you have no idea whether the taliban will 'progress' or not. could it be possible that with time they will see 'the error' of their ways and get in step with 'modern' society. if this were a fringe sect would we even be having this discussion? is the fact that they may very well control a very strategic country, anything to do with the opposition shown towards them? or is it truly about the concern for the oppressed peoples of afghanistan?

sponger

catefrances wrote:

oh i see, so religions and the exponents of said religions can't falter before regaining their progressive step, even if their regression was deliberate?

and what are you psychic? you have no idea whether the taliban will 'progress' or not. could it be possible that with time they will see 'the error' of their ways and get in step with 'modern' society. if this were a fringe sect would we even be having this discussion? is the fact that they may very well control a very strategic country, anything to do with the opposition shown towards them? or is it truly about the concern for the oppressed peoples of afghanistan?

Anything is possible, but if you're going to take that road, then why even bother trying to use an analogy and passing it off as objective? Your analogy didn't hold water because it was too broad, so now you want to revive it with an "anything is possible" option? What is so objective about leaving it up to chance?

In case you didn't notice, I didn't specifically say that the taliban would not progress. I said that your analogy did a poor job of supporting the notion that it would.

And, again, it is not my concern whether the intentions behind the invasion should be further analyzed for foul play.

What I'm getting at is that if people want to speak out against the war, then using the welfare of the afghani/ iraqi people is a very weak stance to take considering that the real immorality lies with the intentions of the invading army, not the outcome of the invasion. Some people have a real hard time differentiating these concepts.

Here it is in the form of an analogy:

Let's say a person founds a charity with the intentions of laundering drug money. So, in support of dismantling the charity, would you concern yourself with whether or not anybody really benefited from the charity's programs?

Obviously you wouldn't concern yourself with that because the real concern is the laundering of drug money. So, when people throw out statistics about dead civilians and NATO airstrikes, all they're really doing is focusing on whether or not anybody benefited from the charitable programs, not the laundering of the drug money.

catefrances

sponger wrote:

Anything is possible, but if you're going to take that road, then why even bother trying to use an analogy and passing it off as objective? Your analogy didn't hold water because it was too broad, so now you want to revive with an "anything is possible" option? What is so objective about leaving it up to chance?

In case you didn't notice, I didn't specifically say that the taliban would not progress. I said that your analogy did a poor job of supporting the notion that it would.

And, again, it is not my concern whether the intentions behind the invasion should be further analyzed for foul play.

What I'm getting at is that if people want to speak out against the war, then using the welfare of the afghani/ iraqi people is a very weak stance to take considering that the real immorality lies with the intentions of the invading army, not the outcome of the invasion. Some people have a real hard time differentiating these concepts.

Here it is in the form of an analogy:

Let's say a person founds a charity with the intentions of laundering drug money. So, in support of dismantling the charity, would you concern yourself with whether or not anybody really benefited from the charity's programs?

Obviously you wouldn't concern yourself with that because the real concern is the laundering of drug money. So, when people throw out statistics about dead civilians and NATO airstrikes, all they're really doing is focusing on whether or not anybody benefited from the charitable programs, not the laundering of the drug money.

perhaps i should think harder before i post. all i was trying to point out was that 600 years ago the christian religion was far more oppressive than it is today. i concluded, rather naively as it turns out, that perhaps a comparative religion just might progress along similar lines given the same expanse of time. that's all. i wasn't consciously trying to be analogous.


and yes i would dismantle the charity. the ability to be charitous to some because of the misery of others doesn't sit well with me at all. i have no problem with people using drugs. but i have a major problem with pushers.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

sponger wrote:

That isn't saying much based on your posts in this thread so far. You should honestly look at how you have this tendency to say one thing and mean another, and then backtrack over it after being called on it. You really don't have a full understanding of your own point of view, as evidenced by your sloppy stances. I'm only trying to help.

maybe you're just flustered or your undies are bunched around your sack and tugging on your pubes...because I have no idea what you;re talking about or even coming to this conclusion on. Maybe I just beamed into this universe of yours from a parallel one...

What part of I don't think anyone has the right to barge into a country, occupy it, and whack people at will are you stuck on?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

sponger wrote:

So like, what I'm noticing in this thread is that people hate war, superpower aggression, lies...etc., and so they feel obligated to hastily assume that the outcome in the middle east is a negative one so as to justify the aforementioned points of disdain.

But, what is being overlooked is that even if the outcome in the middle east is a positive, that does not magically justify US aggression and so forth and so on. Such a justification would be a case of the ends justifying the means, and it is ethics 101 that the ends do not justify the means.

However, I understand that it is a hard argument to make if for some reason is it determined that everyone lived happily ever after. But, again, that does not justify playing the statistics game and making wild projections when it comes to the welfare of the people in question.

It takes guts to say that whatever the outcome in the middle may be, the truth is that the immoralities of the recent invasions should still not go unnoticed.

maybe we can all fly to mars and breather the air tomorrow. Maybe If we keep bombing people into submission it will work eventually...hmm possible but not bloody likely now is it? lol...

I just don't see it...it's like screwing for virginity...

sponger

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

maybe you're just flustered or your undies are bunched around your sack and tugging on your pubes...because I have no idea what you;re talking about or even coming to this conclusion on. Maybe I just beamed into this universe of yours from a parallel one...

What part of I don't think anyone has the right to barge into a country, occupy it, and whack people at will are you stuck on?

The part where you implied that the welfare of the indigenous people had any relevance to that point of view.

sponger

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

maybe we can all fly to mars and breather the air tomorrow. Maybe If we keep bombing people into submission it will work eventually...hmm possible but not bloody likely now is it? lol...

I just don't see it...it's like screwing for virginity...

I'm not advocating war. I'm saying that your anti-war stance is not justified by your pro-indigenous people point of view. I guess you see that now. But in case you don't, here it is again:

If you justify anti-war sentiment by saying that the Iraqi/Afghani people are worse off as a result of the war, then you imply that the war would be justified if the Afghani/Iraq people were better off as a result of the war.

In which case, that is not anti-war sentiment. It is actually anti-poorly planned war sentiment. So, when making your case against war, it is pointless to bring up the suffering of the Iraqi/Afghani people.

If you truly justify across the board anti-war sentiment by citing civilian deaths, then you believe that Hitler should have been left in charge of Europe. If that is your opinion, then that's an entirely different argument altogether.

That's all I'm saying.

sponger

catefrances wrote:

perhaps i should think harder before i post. all i was trying to point out was that 600 years ago the christian religion was far more oppressive than it is today. i concluded, rather naively as it turns out, that perhaps a comparative religion just might progress along similar lines given the same expanse of time. that's all. i wasn't consciously trying to be analogous.


and yes i would dismantle the charity. the ability to be charitous to some because of the misery of others doesn't sit well with me at all. i have no problem with people using drugs. but i have a major problem with pushers.

Now you're being nice. First time around you tried giving me pointers on being objective. That I didn't like very much.

catefrances

sponger wrote:

Now you're being nice. First time around you tried giving me pointers on being objective. That I didn't like very much.

catch more flies with honey than vinegar. next time just tell me. i am approachable. but you know, tis rather difficult to convey tone over the internet.