Ron Paul: Crazy person?... or craziest person?

~~bungalow~~ · 08-07-2009, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayJamJah

this has probably never been the reason the United States went to war.

This thread is about Ron Paul, lets get it on track or shift the discussion to the appropriate thread.

This is the track the thread has taken, so it's right on track I would say. What does right-track think?

Akira · 08-07-2009, 01:50 PM

Inuzuka Skysword · 08-07-2009, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent

what the **** country has threatened us or used force on us since pearl harbor? and if i recall correctly our response was to bomb the hell out of them.

I am arguing that the wars we have fought since then have been just. I am just saying that in the wars the US does fight, we aren't doing it right. We aren't doing it to protect ourselves. We are doing it so that we can set up a new government or protect another country which our government has no responsibility for.

Quote:

No, I'd be glad to have this discussion with you because you pretty clearly don't know what you're talking about on this one. It just doesn't take paragraphs and paragraphs to counter your claim, is all. The purpose of war is to achieve a political objective, it is a means to an end and not an end in and of itself. Wars of attrition (what you're suggesting) are wasteful, unnecessarily violent and generally ineffective. Those in command of the military know this, and that is why they don't engage in wars of attrition. You are playing armchair general and exposing a complete naivety to the purpose of war and the ways they should be effectively fought. Completely destroying your enemy does not end a war, achieving the political objective you sought to achieve in the first place, does. The problem with the current war is that there was never a decisive political objective and the war is essentially endless. My comment was directed at your assumption that destroying the enemy is an inherent objective of war--it isn't. That is an immature and naive understanding of the institution and it has caused countless problems for the United States both now and in the past. The United States decimated the Viet-Cong during the Vietnam war, but the North Vietnamese won that war because they achieved their political goals. It has nothing to do with destroying your enemy.

I am suggesting that the only goal of any just war is self-defense. Therefore, eliminating the threat is what should be done. The Vietnam war was for a completely different purpose and was a waste of time. That is a bad example.

~~bungalow~~ · 08-07-2009, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inuzuka Skysword

I am suggesting that the only goal of any just war is self-defense. Therefore, eliminating the threat is what should be done. The Vietnam war was for a completely different purpose and was a waste of time. That is a bad example.

Well then you're just a hopeless idealist and equally unqualified to comment on how our generals should be fighting this war. This fight is existential for the insurgency, not us, therefore we can never win. It's a simple as that.

Also, as an aside, was the American Revolution not a just war?

~~bungalow~~ · 08-07-2009, 02:23 PM

And the Vietnam war is not a bad example, considering the circumstances are more or less identical and even George Bush has admitted as such. Way to sidestep the larger point, though.

~~The Unfan~~ · 08-07-2009, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inuzuka Skysword

The end of minimum wage is good. The end of government guaranteed sanitary conditions in the workplace is good. The end of the suppression of child labor is great. The end of government hand-outs based upon health needs is excellent. I see no problem here.

I do.

Quote:

Please, do explain how one can have a morality without a goal. Just one example and I will be happy. Also, expect me to find the goal that you will probably fail to mention.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dictionary.com

the result or achievement toward which effort is directed; aim; end.

Someone who has no intent of putting effort into anything can still discern right from wrong.

Quote:

I think that you basically just said, "What I want from reality is good, but it is also stupid because it isn't as great as what I want from reality."

I'm not sure how to reply to this because I don't even know how you came to that conclusion from reading what I posted.

Quote:

What actually is?

That which actually exists.

Quote:

What is the one thing that will induce pleasure and pain in your life? Yourself.

This is a fairly unconnected thought it seems. If you're saying morality is based on reality and reality is where happiness is derived from than you're a hypocrite. You harped on about how nihilism is hopeless and such a thought process is nihilism.

On the other hand, if you're saying happiness is derived from self than duh. Of course happiness is derived from chemical reactions in your brain. However, doing whatever makes you happy is not always ethical.

Quote:

Rand's philosophy is the ideal for living and enjoying this reality. That is because it allows man to like living, unlike the popular philosophies of this time.

I have three problems with this. One, you're denying that happiness can be derived from other philosophies which is certainly not true. Two, you're saying Rand's philosophy allows for happiness, which may or may not be true in some cases; personally I find it depressing. Three, you're saying that happiness is more important than what really is, therefor Rand's philosophy is better. That is pretty nihilistic thinking.

Quote:

It is also based in logic in that she views that man's mind is the key to unlocking reality. As she says, "A=A." This represents that man can know what is beyond him in this objective reality.

How are you defining beyond? You either made the most obvious statement ever or made an obviously false statement.

Quote:

You are the one who claims that man cannot know parts of reality and that is infringing on this base point of logic.

When did I say this?

Quote:

You say that an objective morality is not able to be found.

Nope, I'm saying that it hasn't been found yet.

Quote:

That is saying that logic does not work in the case of morality. That is highly illogical because you deny logic's value in that sentence.

How so? If morality is based on logic and some people think more logically than others than some people will derive different morality. It seems that your argument would support subjective morality, not go against it.

Quote:

Secondly, you have no reason to believe that your selfish goals are wrong. Give me a good reason why one should believe such a thing.

I agree. The question isn't if they're right or wrong on a moral level, but if they can be obtained ethically.

sleepy jack · 08-08-2009, 09:34 PM

I don't know what's going on but Ron Paul has no heart, only a Rand-shaped stone that pumps blood.

anticipation · 08-08-2009, 09:40 PM

'sup ethan.

sleepy jack · 08-08-2009, 09:42 PM

nm u

anticipation · 08-08-2009, 09:46 PM

maxin and relaxin, you know. how was cali livin?

08-07-2009, 02:23 PM	#35 (permalink)
~~bungalow~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Hot-lanta Posts: 3,140	And the Vietnam war is not a bad example, considering the circumstances are more or less identical and even George Bush has admitted as such. Way to sidestep the larger point, though.

08-08-2009, 09:40 PM	#38 (permalink)
anticipation Music Addict Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 3,565	'sup ethan.

08-08-2009, 09:46 PM	#40 (permalink)
anticipation Music Addict Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 3,565	maxin and relaxin, you know. how was cali livin?