The 'imran-and-universal-mind-argue-irrelevantly' Thread!

Oh, fantastic. I guess this has taught me something: NEVER start a topic. EVER.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FreshBrains

Oh, fantastic. I guess this has taught me something: NEVER start a topic. EVER.
[/b]

---

Lol better luck next time :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imran_p

My point regarding your blind patroism was intentionally wrong. You already explained youre passionate disgust towards the war on dugs and that you would burn your draft card. However, it was intendd to hammer home a point. My accusations there are just as unfonded as yours that I hate the US. I find it amazing that I have to keep telling YOU the saem things over and over. I have told you why i havent "gone off" about any off these appalling countries. And also, in the Saddam thread thats all relative. Saddam Hussein was nhung by former allies that illegally invaded when they had no more use of him and then tried him for war crimes equal to there own. Also te same war crimes they attributed to Ayatollah Khomeni when it suited them. Proaganda.

You give up control yes. But you leave in charge a government that is decidedly pro-West. Just like in the Manchurian crisis the Japense elected leader was pro-Japan, and had policies slected by them.
Just like Iran and the Shah?
Just like when you helped depose of Patrice Lumumba in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and repalced him with Mobutu Sese Seko who was a ruthless dictator, a murderer and no better AT ALL than Saddam Hussein, he was supported by many US Presidents including Nixon, Raegan and George H.W. Bush.
Go on explain that away?
Are you going to use your cold war excuse again, churn that one out again?

You honeslty beleive, that I shown disgust at American foreign policy becuase its trendy, if so you are deluded. And also, you keep referring to the reason i am bias against the US, which appreantly me and you both know? And apprenlty its not your ramapging around the world "liberating" countires. ENlighten me? Whats the reason.

On the topic of communism, i see you didnt mention the labour theorym of value and how it directly proves that capitalism is a legalized robbery system? On the topic of Cuba and your influence over it. Of course I place utmost imortance. The ONLY super-power in the world. OF course you are that imprtant. If America expieriences an economic depression, it will have wild re-verbarations. You are the most important trade link for any country, altough Chinan is becoming increaisnlgy important. I support Cuba. You cant deny that a lot of good has been done there, since the revlution and th over-throw of the facist arshole Bastista.
Castro has made imporvements in every area economically, since the "Special Period", mainly thorugh the nationaliszation of the countries assests.
I am not saying it i sa utopian soicety, I have issues espeically with the way he acted witihn his first decade in power, persecuting plitical opponents and such.

Now on the topic of Chinas rsiisng power.
The last thing I want is a war. I bleeive you intneonally mis-understood my words. I bleeive the rise of China will give rise toa respectful eqilibrium between the two nations. It wont go into a war with you, but the Us will have to curb the imperailistic behaviours, and they will. To have one super-power in the world is global anarchy. And to have that super-power unanswerable to the United Nations is worse than anarchy. ANd by the way evertthing suggest a switch in power between China and the US, they have everything going for them.

ANd on the topic of the the atomic bombs, if you had any idea. You wouldnt call them conspiracy theories. It is merely a part of a revisonst perspectve that chalenges the orthodox view on the cause of the cold war. The reviosnist perspective is by far the most logical. Japan was already defeated. And yes you did respond to te majprirty of my points.
Declined to refer to the Labour Theory of Vlaue though, eh?
I suggest you read some revioninist work regarding the cold war.

I bleive I MUST repeat.
I dont hate your country.

Imran
[/b]

---

Your point about my supposed blind patriotism was intentionally wrong? That sounds like a convenient explanation for your falsehood. I have shown actual evidence of my skepticism toward and disagreement with my government. You can find posts that date back to before you even joined where I bitched about the War on Drugs, the ban on gay marriage, the proposed flag burning amendment, and other things. You have not shown evidence for your lack of hatred for my country. You have claimed it, but you keep exposing the opposite. The Saddam thread is one good piece of evidence for it. It was a perfect opportunity for you to write paragraph after paragraph about what a terrible dictator he was. But what did you do? You mentioned that he was a bad guy and wrote a bunch of stuff about how the United States sucks. That is bias against us. The government of Iraq tried him for war crimes because it was the moral thing to do. We allied with him before he was our enemy, before he took over Kuwait, before he violated our ceasefire for 12 years, before he became the monster he became, and before 9/11 and the Bush Doctrine. And once again, alliance is not the same as acceptance. Did we accept the ways of the Soviet Union when we allied with them against the Nazis? Parties don't have to be friends to come together to fight a common enemy. So your examples of "support" don't mean anything. And yes, the Cold War had us working with bad people. It didn't mean we liked them or agreed with all they did. If we hadn't won the Cold War, you would not have the freedom to be talking crap at will on the internet. You're welcome.

Iraq and Afghanistan were led by enemy governments that were suicide bomber supporting. The Taliban was harboring Bin Laden and had to go. 9/11 influenced the Bush Doctrine, which is an intelligent and legitimate doctrine. Under it, the Taliban and the Hussein regime had to go. The Hussein regime had also violated our ceasefire on several terrorism counts for 12 years. Overthrowing them was necessary and legitimate. It was not a matter of "rampaging all over the globe". That is the way you see it because you are so jealous of our power you can't stand it. It is also fun to be rebellious and join the crowd and bitch together about the most powerful leader and country in the world. Enjoy. We will give up control of Iraq and Afghanistan, and they will support the West because the West is mostly democratic. That does not mean we are imperialistic. It means that freedom is what is moral, what is effective, what is safe, and what made us the big deal you are obsessed with thinking we are.

Our effect on the world economy is not a result of our military power. It is a result of our economic system, which all of the wonderful communist countries of the world are welcome to adopt at any time. Capitalism works. Communism does not. It still don't think we are so damn important that not trading with Cuba can wreck them. In saying that, you are saying that if we didn't exist, much of the world would be screwed. Cuba really depends on us that much? What if we weren't even here? Or imagine if we were communist. Your labor theory is something I don't agree with at all, as illustrated by how communism sucks. I did talk about it. I just didn't mention the name. Did you not read what I wrote about lack of incentive and how that stifles countries? And you "support" Cuba? Is that supposed to be your answer to my question about your favorite communist country? If not, then you avoided it, and I have asked you more than once. So you like Cuba's economic system and not ours. So why are we not a Hell hole even though we are not trading with Cuba? Don't they have the superior economic system, according to you? The truth is that they have a robbery system called communism. The government takes what people have earned and distributes it according to how they decide. It is all about robbery. Capitalism is not, although we do need to lower taxes. Capitalism is rooted in freedom. People get what they earn, for the most part. That encourages enterprise and hard work. That is why we are, as you even asserted, the most important economic entity in the world. I invite the rest of the world to join us. Imagine what an awesome world we could have.

You intentionally misunderstood my words regarding China. I didn't say you want a war. I said you want, really bad apparently, for somebody to be more powerful than us. Be careful what you wish for. You don't want China hijacking your life with communism. If it were not for our existence on this planet, they already would have. And have you read about their human rights atrocities?

Japan was not already defeated. They were playing the surrender tantalization game repeatedly, and we had to end the war. We were not going to keep sacrificing soldiers until they decided to do the right thing. The way they were playing games, it may have never happened. They had a very strong philosophy against surrender. They thought like North Vietnam. We had to do something extreme, so we did, and the war ended.

So... What is your favorite communist country? Tell me how their economic system has done so much better than ours.

Edited the topic name for relevancy.

If I choose A, it has a chance of killing those two, right?

They'd be at the top of the list.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arby

If I choose A, it has a chance of killing those two, right?[/b]

---

You're better of choosing (D). Max-security prisons over there don't have internet access, right?

Unicorns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark75

Unicorns.[/b]

---

What about them...?

Quote:

---

What about them...?
[/b]

---

they magically changed into islands

Kleenex islands!

D might be an option, you can ask to be put in the protected area ( where they put witnesses, past-informers etc. ) I'm not sure if anyone who wants can get there by asking, but I would make a research to find out before I make my decision. Most inmates don't want to be there because for them it's considered a place for cowards. I think this area of the prison is quite peaceful and you wouldn't get raped or stabbed there. Again I'll make a research to verify that before I'll make my decision.
So if I'm not going to get raped or stabbed, being in jail would not be so bad. I could meditate, master lucid dreaming, write some books, sounds like fun...

Ok, Ive gone hideously off topic yes?
apolgies, espically to you fresh beains
we deastroyed your topic
and it was an orginal one to



Universal

Basically, it seems out debate has reached one partiocualr point, Marxism vs Capitalism
to help us along im going to make a thread in the extrended discuassio narea for the disucssion of this.

Im gonna close this debate with just a couple of facts for you universal.
I dont ahte your country.
The reason i am opposed to its current forign policy reffers not to jelousy or to the fact that its trendy.
If i wanted I could live in the US, so its ntohing to do with jelousy.


I do hope you'll join in the discussion regarding Marxism
and maybe we can try and keep the tempers down, and indulge in some intelligent, respectufl disagreement
=)

sorry anway fresh brains for destroying your thread
comepltely


On topic- Ive changed my mind, id pick D
ten years in a high security prison would be fun
time to learn, read, master lucid dreaming, like soembody said
and write poetry =)
Imran

We got a bit off topic in terms of specifics, especially with the economic philosphies and the nature of anti-Americanism, but the morality of war has something to do with the initial post. It is the ultimate "Would you..." issue. I said that I would never ever kill any innocent person, much less a billion people, for my own personal gain. That takes a sociopath. But I do support killing some innocent people to save a much greater number of innocent people. I think it is immoral and a form of killing to turn down the chance.

Practically all threads go off topic, especially when the initial post is a stupid question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arby

If I choose A, it has a chance of killing those two, right?
[/b]

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arby

They'd be at the top of the list.
[/b]

---

It looks like we really went over some people's heads.

Is there a "Kill Arby and Freshbrains for charity" option? Perhaps I should list my own set of hypotheticals on a pad in my basement.

Well, you DID hijack the one thread I decided to make. :?

Guess I won't try that for a while.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FreshBrains

Well, you DID hijack the one thread I decided to make. :?

Guess I won't try that for a while.
[/b]

---

It happens every single time I start a thread. What I do in an attempt to prevent it sometimes is ask repeatedly that people stay on topic. It never works. So I came to the conclusion that it is okay, just like how conversations in the real world go all over the place. But when people ask nicely that I not stray from the original topic, I respect it. Talk about killing me, however, gives me a crazy look in my eyes, and I start torturing cats and vandalizing kindergartens. Well not really, but it doesn't exactly win me over to a request.

By the way, we are off topic.

I think it's okay and perfectly logical to stray off topic. It's a forum, not a library - you can't expect the natural course of conversation to stay firmly on one set of rails.

Besides which, I doubt this thread will had stayed so active if it hadn't been for the change in topic.

Blast... And I almost killed it at "Unicorns".

keep trying. You'll get it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keeper

keep trying. You'll get it
[/b]

---

Thanks for the encouragement, Keeps'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaniaz

I don't get what you're saying. How would you feel if you woke up to hear that a man had been willing to humour a terrorist who had that kind of power by giving him the detonator for, say, some nuclear bombs [which equates to the same thing as the button more or less] and saying, 'well then, let's see you do it?'.

Hitler would've been mad in that you totally made him look like a wuss: his holocaust would be a drop in the water. Gandhi would've shook his head and took the opportunity to expound the virtues of India. And Thomas Edison would've gone and flown a kite. At least, that's what they would've done if I hadn't pressed the button and killed them all (oops).

If not me, what's going to stop another guy? Seriously, a psychopath would do that in the blink of an eye. They're also quite good at pretending to have emotions (it's as easy as saying 'I'm feeling so sad right now'). And you're willing to even contemplate handing over the detonator like that? McJesus!
[/b]

---

Just so you know, they still have feelings, they just lack empathy and compassion ;)

I have a sandwich. :)

A unicorn sandwich?

Quote:

---

Just so you know, they still have feelings, they just lack empathy and compassion[/b]

---

Just so you know, that's like, totally irrelevant. Empathy about killing a million people and feelings about killing a million people. What a huge difference that surely must be!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaniaz

Just so you know, that's like, totally irrelevant. Empathy about killing a million people and feelings about killing a million people. What a huge difference that surely must be!
[/b]

---

There is a huge difference. A lot of them would feel very happy and excited about killing a million people. They just wouldn't feel any guilt over it.

Wolffe was clearing up a common misconception. A lot of people do think that psychopaths can't feel emotions at all. Another common misconception is that a psychopath is the same as a psychotic. A psychopath has no empathy/conscience, while a psychotic has very bizarre delusions and/or hallucinations. One person can be both, but it is most common for somebody to be one or the other and not both. The most common misconception regarding human psychology is that Schizophrenia and Multiple Personality Disorder are the same thing. Schizophrenia is a form of extreme psychosis. Many of them change personality characteristics on a regular basis, but not actual identities.