DF-21 Forums

[JJ]

[Mattias Welander]

Tom Manning, I still maintain that since the situation you present is hypothetical, it lacks relevance. The only way you can know of the "absolute guilt" (for lack of a better term) of another person, is to freeze the universe at the moment of the crime and identify the criminal and his or her circumstances. Since that can't be done in our universe, no such thing as "absolute guilt" exist here.

[Mattias Welander]

[JJ]

First off grades are not nearly so important as you pretend. I just as easily could show that I achieved top grades in all computer classes I took. If I took only a limited number of classes with a limited scope then it really doesn't mean a thing. Second, there is a great difference between memorizing limited information from a text book and the practicle application of that information. As your memory is not in question one way or the other, it really isn't important to this discussion. It is your practical application of the knowledge you allege to have that you have not demonstrated. I am an expeert in the social sciences and have the qualifications to call you on this.

[JJ]

[Mattias Welander]

[JJ]

[JJ]

[Mattias Welander]

[Mattias Welander]

[Tom Manning]

JJ, if you are "Growing Tired" then why don't you leave? I find it funny that the only time you ever show up is in political threads which have potential to attack Mattias. I will be the first to say I don't agree with all Mattias says, I am certanaly more conservitive than he is and he is a lot more liberal than I. I however would hope I am at least halfway civil when we argue.

Also, Mattias, I am not saying that Absulute guitly is something that is publicly known, I am saying that someone is absulutly guilty after commiting a crime even if no one knows. I guess maybe that is something that is overly obviose, but I thought that that should be in the list of types of guilt.

I guess though that people who do not belive in absulute thruth could argue me on this one though.

_________________
Tom Manning
For all that you hold dear on this good Earth, I bid you, Stand, Men of the West!
Aragorn: Return of the King

[Mattias Welander]

[DarthDoctor]

Hmm... won't let me delete to correct a typo...

_________________
"At least, I think it was primitive DD that was the source of the bug" - Nottheking

[DarthDoctor]

[Mattias Welander]

[Taton]

Believe me Matthias, you come across as Liberal. If you aren't that way, then stop presenting yourself this way. Your comments and opinions point towards being liberal.

It like a car mecahnic saying hes not a car mechanic. He just a "guy that works on cars"...

_________________
"A fight should be clean and elegant, without waste"
-Asuka Langley Sohryu, Evangelion

[Mattias Welander]

[Taton]

Okay, maybe there is a cultural misunderstanding here. I'm not sure how it is in Sweden, but here in America, your views are considered liberal.

I really apologize if I insulted you. I'm not very tactful in my political speeches.

_________________
"A fight should be clean and elegant, without waste"
-Asuka Langley Sohryu, Evangelion

[JJ]

[Matt H]

I'm not sure why I'm returning to this fray since I know better, but I'm going in anyway.

I agree with Tom Manning and the idea that guilt is not determined by what people know, but by what is. If someone commits a crime and no one ever knows, he is still guilty of committing the crime. However, I also see Mattias's point - that it's in a way irrelevant what his "actual guilt" is, since judgement on this plane of existence can only be done by what is known. (Maybe what people need to agree on it what should or should not be considered relevant.)

I do wish more people could read Mattias' criticisms towards American policies and tendancies and not get so blinded by them, thinking that means he's anti-everything-American. While I think it's good for people to reflect on criticisms made, they should not always take it so personally, and instead try to understand what is meant with the criticisms.

That said, I think that sometimes those criticisms aren't always handled well. They are sometimes brought up when they don't need to be, which gives the impression that Mattias is deliberately wanting to upset those who disagree with him. It may his intent to educate and open our eyes to our wrongdoings, but usually it instead comes across as being deliberately difficult, trying to get people angry. And I sometimes wish you other guys wouldn't take the bait every time.

The other problem is that Mattias makes statements which most would consider opinion and states them as obvious fact. They aren't always obvious and they aren't always facts. For example, no one can truly know what "most people on Earth" think or believe. It's Mattias' belief that they do, but it really can't be proven. But it can't really be disproven, either, which makes it easier for Mattias to treat it as fact instead of opinion. And if it's considered a fact, then it can't really be argued against (since that's how it is), making it harder to argue with any contentions that "fact" supports. Likewise for calling things "obvious" (like not hating American politics and American ideals "would obviously be anti-human.") That immediately cuts out anyone else's differing opinion. It implies that differing opinions are flat-out wrong, without question, since the opinion stated should be easily seen or understood. (The fact that so many others don't easily see or understand things in that way proves that it's not obvious.) I have to admit that it's a good arguing strategy, but if people want to argue well and come up with good counters, they should be aware of what's happening.

Note: I am not saying that Mattias claims all his opinions as facts. I am saying that he often treats his opinions as facts, particularily while trying to prove a point.

Another point I wanted to comment on, which kind of relates to all of this: Casually calling America a "barbaric state" implies that everything about and within the state - all the governments, all the people, all the beliefs and ideals they hold - all of it is without civility, which I believe most would consider a bad thing. With all of America seemingly being labeled as bad, it's easy to construe such comments as "anti-American." (Especially since it is not an inherent truth.)

Besides, who is to say whether or not America should be considered civilized or not? America is not in a primitve state; it has achieved a technically advanced and rational ordered stage of cultural development. Perhaps it may not be as civilized as other countries, but it could be also argued to be more civilized than others. Regardless, that determination is made based on individual personal criteria, not any absolute standard, and thus it is an opinion.

But hey - this is all just my opinion, right?

I think the reason people consider Mattias liberal goes something like this: Bush is considered in America to be conservative. People in America who are very pro-America and pro-American ideals are considered conservative. Mattias is against Bush. Mattias is against American politics and ideals. Mattias is therefore seemingly against conservatives. In America, liberals are traditionally considered the opposite or against conservatives. Therefore, Mattias must be liberal.

The flaw in the logic: Being against [the American meaning of] conservatism does not guarantee being liberal. (It just helps.)

<brat>On a side note: at least we know that George W. cannot be considered guilty of any crimes against humanity in Iraq, since he hasn't been found legally guilty in court, his moral guilt is between him and God alone, and everything else is irrelevant. </brat>

And lastly, 1 + 1 = 10. Any fool using binary knows that.

[Lionel Fouillen]

I think there is definitely a problem of misunderstanding due to political differences.

What you call Republican in the US is in fact closer to what we call Neo-fascist in Europe. I think it's due to the fact that Republican politicians became more and more radical in some of their views, especially men like Buchanan and Bush Jr with the "religious right". The fact that social security in the US is also not as protective as in Europe doesn't help tempering the idea of ultra-conservatism usually associated with these persons. Rather, Europeans will perceive them as equivalent to politicians like Jean-Marie LePen in France or Silvio Berlusconi in Italy, leaders of populist parties standing as typical examples of modern European extreme-right.

I would like to mention that, unlike in the US where the importance of religion increased in the Republican party, the importance of religion decreased in European Republican parties. The moral values of those Republicans were firmly established through the French revolution which one of the main goals was to overthrow the influence of the Church in politics, thus ensuring a total separation of Church and State. Needless to say that founders of contemporary European republicanism were often atheists or moderate believers.

In Europe, those for whom Religion is the major value usually find themselves in dedicated parties usually called Christian Democrats, Social-Christians or even Conservatives. Their conservatism is more about moral values than social or economical structure. As for Republicans (who are also called Reformists or Liberals depending on the country), they definitely stand for right-wing but their primary values are "free thought" and "free enterprise". In Europe, a Liberal is essentially somebody who advocates economic liberalism or capitalism (hence a Liberal here is the opposite of a Socialist or a Democrat) and who recommends that religion stays as far as possible away from politics to remain within the limits of each citizen's private life.

Also, I want to say that war happened twice in our countries in the 20th century, so there are still many open wounds which make the average european citizen less incline to support the involvment of our troops in one more conflict, unlike the US where the 20th and 21st centuries conflicts they were involved with actually took part abroad. I believe this is also one of the reason why many of us harshly criticized the war-monging attitude of the present US government.

As for fascism, you Americans were lucky enough to not having it in your country 60 years ago. It has been a foreign phenomenon until now, so you can't clearly understand what it is and you don't notice the government you have now with ideologists like Paul Wolfowitz and the Bush clan is a fascist-like one. This is something that scares many Europeans and probably also one of the reasons why many, whether Democrats or Republicans, are so opposed to the Bush administration.

---
Message edited a few times in the 15 minutes-so after first publication.

[JJ]

I appreciate your reply Lionel. It does seem to be a reasonably accurate depiction of the European viewpoint. I don't agree with that point but I do understand it. The same attitude existed in Europe at the onset of the Second World War and many people criticized Churchill for wanting to remove Hitler. In the end the allies didn't invade and Hitler built his arsenal and eventually conquerred much of
Europe. It's hard to be accurate with estimates given the uncertainty inherent in what might have been but I've heard that most experts generally believe it would have cost somewhere in the hundreds of thousands of lives to remove Hitler early on. No doubt this constitutes a significant cost. In the end the death toll was in the millions when Hitler was eventually toppled and the delay was not advantageous. People had a few additional years of moderate peace but at what cost. It is debatable how great a threat Sadaam was capable of posing to Europe and the threat in the end might not justify many in supporting his ouster but the case can be made that in the absence of certainty the potential for a threat did exist. It can be pointed out that many thousands of people lost their lives because of Sadaam's regime in the years following the first Gulf War and that had we finished then what we are doing now, many of those people might still be alive today. Granted they were not Europeans or Americans but are their lives really worth less? The choices to support or oppose the war are both valid views and are each supportable based on an individual's values. Individual values in these matters are equally valid when determining what do do in this type of situation because they are based on what is important to each individual and it is unreasonable to expect everyone to conform to a single set of values.

[Mattias Welander]

In other words, you support an assassination of Bush, since it is now proven he is a greater threat to world peace than Hussein ever was?

[JJ]

????I wonder sometimes Mattias if you really read the posts you respond too? Heck, I wonder if you really read your own posts?

[Taton]

[Mattias Welander]

[Lionel Fouillen]

[GAdRS]

I've noticed that Lionel is capable of establishing more rational thought and more points in a discussion in two posts than Mattias can in two pages of posts.

Maybe we should listen to Lionel as the primary "voice of Europe" on this thread instead of listening to Mattias. Like he's already stated, he's so radical that it is against the law for him to state some of his opinions.

[Mattias Welander]

Ah, but GAdRS, you're just another American cockroach. It's not like your opinion on the subject has any significance.

[DarthDoctor]

??? Mattais, what are you doing? Why are you calling GAd a cockroach? What are you thinking about? This makes me think, that perhaps, all your opinions hide malign intent.

_________________
"At least, I think it was primitive DD that was the source of the bug" - Nottheking