Barack Obama wins the Nobel Peace prize

[Trolldor]

Sauce=Source

[Drewish]

I'm not committed to either the liberal or conservative agendas. I see both as having strong and weak points. What I find unreasonable is siding with one or the other unconditionally. Both engage equally in propagandizing and consensus engineering, but that's pretty much what happens around the globe. The US just happens to be more advanced in that field. My message is that we should go with the side that promotes less killing, more understanding, patience and tolerance.

Read those words over again. Are you sure you're not committed to a side?

[FBM]

I'm not committed to either the liberal or conservative agendas. I see both as having strong and weak points. What I find unreasonable is siding with one or the other unconditionally. Both engage equally in propagandizing and consensus engineering, but that's pretty much what happens around the globe. The US just happens to be more advanced in that field. My message is that we should go with the side that promotes less killing, more understanding, patience and tolerance.

Read those words over again. Are you sure you're not committed to a side?

Yes, I'm sure. When the Republicans start promoting peace and reconciliation over war, then I'll be waving their flag. The Republican party was responsible for the end of slavery in the US. Yay for the Republican party! Now they've switched sides. I really don't give a shit what the label is, if they promote warfare and the interests of the economic elite over the welfare of the general population, then fuck 'em. If the Democrats ever adopt that position, well fuck them, too.

'My' side is whatever side that offers the most peaceful, rational approach to the general welfare. History has shown that the us-against-them approach sucks donkey balls. Right now, Obama is representing the win-win position. When the conservatives come up with an even better win-win position, I'll be right there, cheering them on.

[Drewish]

Don't you see the assumptions and implicit assertions of political ideology made in those statements that indicate that you have picked a side?

[FBM]

Don't you see the assumptions and implicit assertions of political ideology made in those statements that indicate that you have picked a side?

No, I don't. I've picked peace over war, the welfare of the many over the special interests of a ruling elite. I don't give a shit which side represents which. I'm willing to go with either one as long as they promote the general welfare over the greed of a few. Is that so hard to understand? It's the very opposite of partisanship. Partisanship is when you stick with your party's label, no matter what they're pushing at the moment, just because you have an emotional attachment to the label. I'm willing to vote Republican when they present the superior platform (I voted for Reagan, FFS), and I'm willing to vote Democrat when they have it. I'd vote for anybody of any party affilitiation if they had the best plan. How is that picking a side?

[Drewish]

Assumptions / Assertions:
War is always bad
Greed is bad
Utilitarianism is good
The Republicans are (presently) more divisive than the Democrats

It's like you're saying "I'm a hard core Lefty, but I'm politically neutral and not bias because if the Republicans became liberals, then I'd vote for them."

[FBM]

Assumptions / Assertions:
War is always bad
Greed is bad
Utilitarianism is good
The Republicans are (presently) more divisive than the Democrats

It's like you're saying "I'm a hard core Lefty, but I'm politically neutral and not bias because if the Republicans became liberals, then I'd vote for them."

Blatant distortions and misrepresentations of my points.

Unnecessary, unprovoked wars of aggression are bad.
Yes, greed is bad.
I've never even alluded to utilitarianism.
Yes, the Republicans are presently mroe divisive than the Democrats. This is subject to change, and when it changes, so will my statements regarding it.

Yes, when the Republicans start promoting peace and general welfare over the narcissistic interests of an elite few who have inherited wealth and influence by accidents of birth and history rather than by individual merit and achievements, they'll get my vote.

Is it reasonable to conclude that you're pro-war and elitist? I'm asking because I don't want to make statements that distort your position. I prefer to have you state your position clearly on your own, rather than resorting to rhetorical devices.

Edit: Corrected "Republicans" to "Democrats".

[Drewish]

That would be a huge thread derail. And I'm already concluding that the two of us aren't going to find much common ground without a tremendous amount of discussion first. If you want to know what I think, here's my blog. i think we should move this to either PM or a new thread though, otherwise we're going to completely derail this thing. I'll leave you to discuss the previous topic with born-again-atheist.

[charlou]

Which part was a non-seqitur? The one where I show that Godwin's law was actually broken by the other side first,

Other side? Unless I misunderstood your objection, I agree with you about the indoctrination concern.

Edit: oh, were you refering to FBM's comment and not the vid I posted? If so, ignore the above.

[charlou]

Well, shit, I don't have a problem with the song and I think the Nobel was reasonable.

The song: Adults indoctrinate children. That's a large part of being a parent or a teacher. It happens every day in every culture. That song is just another in a very, very long list of examples. The pledge of allegiance is indoctrination. Bush's propaganda to link Iraq to WMDs, Al Qaeda and 9/11 was indoctrination. Strictly speaking, the alphabet song is indoctrination. Whether you oppose that Obama song or not is largely a reflection of your political bias, which is just a reflection of the influences you have been exposed to. The song is as much about fostering peace and cooperation as it is about Obama.

I have nothing against Obama and am very glad he's the current US prez. Obama is irrelevant to my concern about this kind of indoctrination. If I learned that my children were being indoctrinated into an ideological viewpoint at school and obliged to adulate any person or any ideology I'd remove them from that school and make my concerns known. It's no different to religious indoctrination and it's completely different to teaching children the 'three Rs' which are not ideology based, and completely different from learning about all the various ideologies from an academic perspective.

We were no longer made to sing 'God Bless the Queen' in SA schools since the seventies, and I've told my children singing the National Anthem is optional, ie up to them if the want to or not. If they choose not to, they're to let me know if anyone in authority makes an issue of it.

[FBM]

I have nothing against Obama and am very glad he's the current US prez. Obama is irrelevant to my concern about this kind of indoctrination. If I learned that my children were being indoctrinated into an ideological viewpoint at school and obliged to adulate any person or any ideology I'd remove them from that school and make my concerns known. It's no different to religious indoctrination and it's completely different to teaching children the 'three Rs' which are not ideology based, and completely different from learning about all the various ideologies from an academic perspective.

Yes, of course. Religious and patriotic indoctrinations are engineered to produce blind followers, whereas indoctrination in maths and science and so forth are designed to produce independent thinkers. But it's still indoctrination, and I think that point is mostly ignored here. I think (but have kinda forgot now )I was trying to point out that we need to be aware that we all indoctrinate our children to reflect our values. Therefore, when we speak of the ills of "indoctrination" we need to be specific about which kind of indoctrination we're talking about.

We were no longer made to sing 'God Bless the Queen' in SA schools since the seventies, and I've told my children singing the National Anthem is optional, ie up to them if the want to or not. If they choose not to, they're to let me know if anyone in authority makes an issue of it.

Madness!!!

[FBM]

That would be a huge thread derail. And I'm already concluding that the two of us aren't going to find much common ground without a tremendous amount of discussion first. If you want to know what I think, here's my blog. i think we should move this to either PM or a new thread though, otherwise we're going to completely derail this thing. I'll leave you to discuss the previous topic with born-again-atheist.

Looks like a suspiciously convenient exit from the discussion to me, but I also am tired of the topic and the . I just want to wrap this up by repeating that though I reject your political ideals, I don't reject you personally. Thanks for arguing with me! It was a good challenge!












ZOMFG!! Somebody on teh Internets disagrees with me!!

:schism: :schism: :schism: :schism:

[charlou]

haha

FBM, Andrew

[FBM]

haha

FBM, Andrew

[eXcommunicate]

Well, uh, back on topic?

So, who in your minds should have won the Nobel Prize this year?