Has anybody ever wondered.....

[Maully]

[color=green]I agree that Sadaam had to be removed. He performed attrocities against his people. It should have been done right the first time, though. We should not even have to be dealing now. There are many, many things that the money for the war could be doing here. But we went there, and we are there now and it is our responsibilty to stabilize things now. The worst thing right now is that the American death toll is higher after the victory than during the entire war...

As for prevention... There are many things America can do, but there are a lot of things they have done and, I don't think they should have...such as:
The American Patriot Act!! This law is one huge infringement on the civil rights of Americans. I highly suggest you read it if you haven't, you might just be outraged... As for things we could do and haven't: An overhaul of the immigration system and border systems. Gray Davis, in aneffort to stay Governor, has signed a law in CA to give state driver's licenses to illegel immigrants, what do you guys think about that one?? And one more thing... the bureau of homeland security, is another bureau completely necessary?? why not improve communication and decrease competition of existing offices instead of passing over them and starting a new one.[/color]

[Drix D'Zanth]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Charlie Levoy [/i]
[B]By what? Murdering more people? Cause that's what we're doing.
Does any body agree with this method? [/B][/QUOTE]

mur·der ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrdr)
n.
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
Slang. Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder.
A flock of crows. See Synonyms at flock1.


NO premeditated malice. It was lawful in our eyes. And we did not mean to kill the innocents in the war. Stop bitching about innocents anyway, if there's any country that is least likely to kill Innocents in a war, it's the US. I agree with our war, the justifications. We are attacking a threat to our country that has been already voted in by the house and senate.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Dagger IX1 [/i]
[B]
I also agree with your second point, but for slightly different reasons. The leaders of our country were extremely rude to the other members of the UN in the period leading up to this war. Some even commented that the UN was becoming obsolete. Many believed that we could win the war (which we did) and stabilize Iraq (which we haven't) without its assistence.

Isn't it ironic that we're now crawling back to the UN, practically begging for help? And do we ever need it. When eight Iraqi policemen are accidentally killed by US troops, something's seriously wrong. Our army is simply spread too thin, and we can't afford to risk more American lives.
[/B][/QUOTE]

The UN is becoming obsolete. The method of solving the investigation in Iraq was pathetic. It seems that countries are taking advanatage of open debate, and claiming the lesser of two evils, hindering definitive action. The UN doesn't stand for a pillar of justice or truth anymore. We didn't slander the UN as their leaders slandered our nation. (I'll substantiate this when I find the time) And no, we aren't crawling back to the UN after this war. These soldiers should be marching with their heads held high, as they protected the freedoms of you, and your family, Daggger. And American troops aren't wandering around killing policemen, they are trying to establish a system of law, and order. After random shootings and carbombings, I'd be a bit paranoid if I saw 8 armed Iraqui's.... Careful how you word things, dagger, it almost appeared as if you demonized the US soldier there.

QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Dagger IX1 [/i]
[B]Your third point is debatable. I'm not a high-ranking government official, and I haven't seen the intelligence either. I thought I should point out, though, that intelligence is never completely certain. It's a composite of semi-reliable informats, rumors, and educated guesses, as well as hard evidence. So simply because intelligence may have seemed to indicate that nuclear weapons were made in Iraq, doesn't automatically mean that they were or are definitely there.
[/B][/QUOTE]

The fact is, it's far riskier to NOT act, than it is to ACT. The greater good. I'd give my life for 8 other americans. I love my country that much, to the point that if it were to call upon me in an event of major war, I would accept. Nuclear weapons are fairly distinguishible. We also had records of chemical, biological, etc. We had shipping records of radioactive material from France (perhaps why they so ferverently opposed us, no?) I, like yourself, only know what I've heard... which is pretty convincing. I reiterate: it's not worth the risk that there ARE nuclear weapons.

QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Dagger IX1 [/i]
[B]Finally, I'd like to thank you for giving a meaningful contribution to this debate/conversation. I may not agree with everything you've said, but it was definitely interesting to consider your point of view.
[/B][/QUOTE]

I thank you as well. I enjoy the exchange of ideas between us, Dagger. Keep it up :).

[CB Shin]

I disagree with you Drix D'Zanth. No human life should be taken away by something they're not even involved in. If everyone had your attitude, the world would be a mess. No war is really justified, think about it. From the beginning of mankind to modern society, man has fought, and for what? Conflict of interest. People have always fought for what they believed in, but it's never justified. Before you judge the enemy, know your enemy and more importantly, know your enemy's enemy, that is, yourself. You have no right to criticize Iraq's current state. Would you still be so bold if you were in Iraq? Remember, think how the Iraqi citizens feel about this(not Saddam).

[Drix D'Zanth]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by shahi [/i]
[B]I belive its the govorment paying all this money for other countrys that might just want to be left alone yet they don't have the money they need to send every one in america to collage for free but I bet you all that money the repubilcan goverment is getting could go to collage funds. all these other problems in the world and all this money is olny going in to a war that could have been prevented [/B][/QUOTE]

First off.. Make some **** -ing sense. Punctuation, spelling, and grammar are your friends :). Next, college is a private establishment for the most part, why in the hell would the government pay for free college? What funds are you talking about.. tuition? You mean the government should pay for my college? That would be nice.. but... no, it spends enough already.

And what money for other countries? Foreign aid?? Good idea, let's get rid of foreign aid, screw the rest of the world. The war was inevitable as long as Saddaam remained in power, we even gave him FAIR warning to step down, and cede the country to UN control for inspection...... *sigh*

Why don't you just sit there and look stupid, wrather than opening your mouth and removing all doubt? - a wonderful T-shirt I noticed the other day.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]I disagree with you Drix D'Zanth. No human life should be taken away by something they're not even involved in.
[/B][/QUOTE]

No, I agree with you. *pop's in the taped news recordings of 9/11* You are abso****inglutely right....

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]
If everyone had your attitude, the world would be a mess. [/B][/QUOTE]

I'm flattered :D. A "mess" is far less harsh than the condition the world resides in today.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]
No war is really justified, think about it. From the beginning of mankind to modern society, man has fought, and for what? Conflict of interest. People have always fought for what they believed in, but it's never justified. Before you judge the enemy, know your enemy and more importantly, know your enemy's enemy, that is, yourself. [/B][/QUOTE]

Your right! The killing of 6 million jews was perfectly justified, right? Perhaps the death of a few thousand people at pearl harbour.. that was justified, I mean.. Japan gave us fair warning, right? Of course it's a conflict of interest. Know my enemy... well.. let's see, I know that Sadaam has no problem attempting to exterminate an entire race of people, put children into jail, and let toddlers clear minfeilds.. Thank you for coming to the realization, that by disagreeing with Saddaam's point of view, I'm the true enemy. Your wisdom astounds me.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]
You have no right to criticize Iraq's current state. Would you still be so bold if you were in Iraq? Remember, think how the Iraqi citizens feel about this(not Saddam). [/B][/QUOTE]

I would probably be as bold as the raging mob that happily tore down the statue of Saddam. Think about it for a moment. If you expect me to look at this through an Iraquis' shoes consider this:

-They are indoctrinated to belive the united states is pure evil
-They are indoctrinated to belive Saddam is a god-like figure.. something to be heralded as a great person.
-They are killed if they have a difference in opinion.
-Remember the Iraqui information minister? he probably spewed alot of the same BS propoganda well before the war began.

So I guess the Iraqui opinion was a bit biased to begin with, don't you think? They haven't had the right to freedom of expression as you have. No open debate.

[Baron Samedi]

Think. Why do countries 'do' terrorism... isn't it because another country does something that annoys them, or because they want to depose a government? So, if people were fair to one another, and let them get on with their religions, then it would only be against a 'bad' government. Now, if everyone is going to try and flush them out if they do terrorist attacks, are they going to? No. If you don't grant them publicity, don't acknowledge their cause, then they lose the way to get more followers, and to have people understand. Eventually it will die out. I am not saying AMERICA NECESSARILY DID THE WRONG THING, BUT I THINK IT COULD HAVE BEEN RESOLVED DIFFERENTLY IF [I]BOTH[/I] PARTIES WERE MORE LENIENT. Damn capslock. I am going to leave this as is, coz I got to go, and can't be bothered re-changing that. But do you see my point?

[CB Shin]

Drix, Not all Iraqi's feel the same way. That would be called stereotyping. That's why they took down the Statue, remember?And I was not talking about Saddam's point of view, I was talking about the people of Iraq. You can't judge a race by a certain individual. You have no idea what they feel or what they are thinking, maybe unless you have talked to every one of them. You've never been in Iraq. Maybe you should consider experiencing their pain before you mouth off to me.

[Drix D'Zanth]

And neither do you Shin, so before trying to lecture me on stereotypes, let's discuss what we have: postulations. If you are really going to get so picky on what we know and don't know, we have no reason to discuss the topic at all. Yes I'm sterotyping to an extent, but stereotypes arent created by some comittee for no definable reason, they are created by a group living up to the stereotype! Stereotyping isn't WRONG, or BAD, unless the group makes a discernable effort to change.

I saw the newscasts of iraqui schools before the war, being told that America was a horrible nation. That sadaam was right. I saw the tyranny he evoked, and the terror he inflicted upon his own country. I'm not talking about mild mannerisms here, Shin, the Baath party paraded down the street dragging bodies.

I sincerely doubt you have experienced their "pain". It's funny, you condemn me to generilization, at the same time generalizing their own "pain." We all experience hardships in one way or another, emotionally or physically. Let's not disinvalue people's personal journies. There' s no point in comparing eachother's pain. It's ironic how oxymoronic you sound... not an insult, just an observation...

Edit: I respect your opinions, of course.. I just don't agree.

[CB Shin]

Stereotyping is wrong in any way, and in now way does this topic have to do with it. The great thing about democracy is that we can express our opinions in any way. Don't forget that Sadaam is Dictator of Iraq(or was) and he could control the media in any way he wanted. A dictatorship allows you to control all aspects of a country, but that doesn't mean the people have to agree with it. And do you really think that you've had more hardships than the Iraq citizens? I'm not trying to sound like a hypocrit by disinvaluing everyone's hardships, hell I've had a lot of my own as I'm sure you all have. But the hardships In their country are beyond comparison. Even Muslim Americans have faced a lot of hardships. I'm not disinvaluing anyone's problems, I'm only giving pity. Can you not understand that?

[Adahn]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Baron Samedi [/i]
[B]Think. Why do countries 'do' terrorism... isn't it because another country does something that annoys them, or because they want to depose a government? So, if people were fair to one another, and let them get on with their religions, then it would only be against a 'bad' government. Now, if everyone is going to try and flush them out if they do terrorist attacks, are they going to? No. If you don't grant them publicity, don't acknowledge their cause, then they lose the way to get more followers, and to have people understand. Eventually it will die out. I am not saying AMERICA NECESSARILY DID THE WRONG THING, BUT I THINK IT COULD HAVE BEEN RESOLVED DIFFERENTLY IF [I]BOTH[/I] PARTIES WERE MORE LENIENT. Damn capslock. I am going to leave this as is, coz I got to go, and can't be bothered re-changing that. But do you see my point? [/B][/QUOTE]

First of all, countries don't do terrorism. If a country does something destructive to another country, we call it an act of war. Terrorism is, oh, say, a group of radical-Islamists flying hijacked airplanes into a couple buildings filled with innocent people, with every intent of killing as many of them as possible. Do you sense a difference? And about not granting terrorist groups publicity, I find that funny. You tell me how we convince the American people that two airplanes coincidentally flew into the World Trade Center, without any planning by a terrorist group. I suppose a good thing to do would be to pretend it never happened, and do nothing to retaliate or protect ourselves against a later occurance (sarcasm). What you said about both parties, are you talking about the U.S. and the Taliban? Yes, let's go talk to them. Come on, crawl out of your caves, we just want to talk. I have a hunch that that strategy wouldn't prove too effective. In essence, no, I do not see your point. If I'm missing something here, I would not mind being enlightened. I'm all for that :)

[Dagger]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]And do you really think that you've had more hardships than the Iraq citizens?......But the hardships In their country are beyond comparison. Even Muslim Americans have faced a lot of hardships.[/B][/QUOTE]

I don't think that's what Drix meant, Shin. And I don't really understand the point you're trying to make. At first, it sounded as though you were against the war. Now, I'm just confused.

When people ask me if I am in favor of the war, I usually say no, for the sake of simplicity. Real life, however, is not as simple as abstract arguments.

If our original rationale for waging war had been to liberate the Iraqi people, then I would have supported it with all my heart. No human being should have to suffer so much, for so long. I'm glad that Saddam Hussein is out of power.

In the beginning, the primary reason we went to war was because of the threat that Iraq might have weapons of mass destruction. I was, and still am, against this. If the United States is going to set a precedent of preemptive strikes, then the least our leaders could do is attack countries which definitely possess WMD. North Korea comes to mind.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Drix D'Zanth[/i]
[B]And American troops aren't wandering around killing policemen, they are trying to establish a system of law, and order. After random shootings and carbombings, I'd be a bit paranoid if I saw 8 armed Iraqui's.... Careful how you word things, dagger, it almost appeared as if you demonized the US soldier there.[/b][/quote]

My apologies. I didn't mean to suggest that our soldiers were being careless or trigger-happy. Many of them have died in the random shootings and carbombings that you mentioned, and it's understandable that they would be wary of most Iraqis. Anyway, I was trying to say that if UN forces came in to help, the general situation might calm down a bit. With more troops (and therefore, hopefully, more control and confidence), that kind of tragic accident could probably be prevented.

~Dagger~

[Drix D'Zanth]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]Stereotyping is wrong in any way, and in now way does this topic have to do with it. The great thing about democracy is that we can express our opinions in any way. Don't forget that Sadaam is Dictator of Iraq(or was) and he could control the media in any way he wanted. A dictatorship allows you to control all aspects of a country, but that doesn't mean the people have to agree with it. And do you really think that you've had more hardships than the Iraq citizens? I'm not trying to sound like a hypocrit by disinvaluing everyone's hardships, hell I've had a lot of my own as I'm sure you all have. But the hardships In their country are beyond comparison. Even Muslim Americans have faced a lot of hardships. I'm not disinvaluing anyone's problems, I'm only giving pity. Can you not understand that? [/B][/QUOTE]

Whether stereotyping is right or wrong is not the issue. It happens for a reason, and a good one at that. Re-read please.

You are right, **** the basic liberties of Man, and let the dictator rule as he pleases. I really didn't care THAT much until he threatened the security of the united states. The only debate is wheter or not he did.... I have faith in our intelligence, and It's worth the risk that he DOESNT have nuclear weapons!

Out of the greatest hardships came the greatest people. Take Viktor Frankyl, for example. His family almost totally perished in Nazi death camps, and he endured torture. However, he realized the fundamental freedom he had that the Nazi's could not take away. He saw them take away his family, comfort, lifestyle, and dignity, but he held on to the freedom to choose how he would react to it. He came out of the camp a stronger man, didn't let them break his spirit, and found a newfound center in his life.

You keep complaining about the lifestyle in Iraq? Well, Saddam sure as hell wasn't doing anything to the better. And this argument does nothing to justify whether or not we should have made war upon Iraq.

I could honestly say that if you put me in an Iraqui's situation today, I wouldn't let it break me. I would make the best of what I have, all the pity from anit-war activists isn't going to do JACK. Personally, I would spit your pity back at you.. I despise pity.

Another thought came to mind.. why the hell are Pacafists trying to defend Saddam?? The irony is mind-blowing.

[Charlie Levoy]

Well this is getting intreasting, but none of you have answered my last question. Can terrorist attacks and wars be prevented? If so how?

[Brasil]

Replying to every point is nigh impossible, so I?m just going to post my thoughts. Those who want to respond to me, can. No guarantees my post here will sound coherent, because the subject matter is not coherent in the least. That is what I will try to prove: fractured perspective. Also keep in mind, I am ?Xtreme Neutrality.? I am not on either side. I?m an observer.

It seems to me, the entire debate here is about a modality of right. Who is right, who is wrong.

Those that argue that, in my opinion, are missing the entire point of this conflict. The superficial ideal surrounding the ?war on terror? IS ?They?re trying to destroy us. We must get them first.? I do not disagree with that.

But, we must more closely examine the situations and conditions BENEATH this war.

Upon examining the context and motivations, we see that this isn?t a war against anything. It?s simply a social revelation. This entire war?If it can even be considered a war. After all, ?war? is a term devised by humans, based on our definitions and views of life, so what?s to say it really is ?war,? and not just ?one big huge prick-waving dickfight??isn?t useful for anything more than waking us up to societal dangers at hand.

What are the societal dangers, you might ask?

They include terrorism (home and abroad), yes. But they also include societal conflict.

The debaters in this thread have proven there is a societal conflict. It can essentially be broken down to ?conservatives vs liberals.? But even this simplified diagram isn?t wholly accurate. There are some conservatives who are against this war, who do not agree with the motives and inclinations of our leaders, but acknowledge the necessity of war, and realize war is inevitable. I belong to that category. As many of you have already guessed by my posts, I lean more conservative. However, I am not ?conservative? for the same reasons as Drix. While Drix fully believes in our (note the word ?our.? Will mention more later in post) cause, I see fault within.

However, I do lean towards liberal, as well. I do not agree with the war. I don?t agree with motives and such that I listed previously. But yet I differ from liberal just as I differ from mainstream conservative.

The argument that ?war is horrible and should never be an option? is a valid one, as war IS a deadly and destructive force. However, if we look at historicity, as some have mentioned the Crusades (Maybe it wasn?t on this thread, maybe it was. I?m not entirely sure. I haven?t really been coherent at all lately.). OK, looking at historicity, what do we see? Violence. War. Suffering. No time period comes to mind that didn?t have any conflict.

I?m not attacking anyone in particular, but most liberals fall into ?head in the sand.? It?s one thing to have an opinion, but don?t just spew propaganda. Yes, war is wrong. Yes, war is bad. But war is necessary.

I?ve come to a realization over the past 2 years. I?ve accepted the necessity of war. I?ve accepted the fact that the world will never live in total peace and harmony, and people will always fight with other people. It?s simply human nature.

Those that yearn for a peaceful world, I say this:

?Damn it, I agree with you. We?ve had violence for too damn long and the madness has to cease. But please, consider what the world is. Consider what the reality of today is. Striving for a utopian society, or at least one free from death, is a very noble cause, and I commend you on thinking that way. In fact, I share your views. But those that yearn for peace must also see the reality of the situation and the futility of fighting against violence. There cannot be peace. It is not possible with what the human race is.? (That?s not spewing propaganda, either. If a totally peaceful world were possible, would there have been 4,000 years of violence?)

Some have accused me of living in a fantasy land. Actually those who have said that are blind liberals?hmmm?who live in their own fantasy land of everything is fine and dandy, cotton candy and rainbows.

While I do not agree with conservatives (I abhor aligning myself with either side), I must say, they are looking at this much more logically.

The question is NOT whether we are right. The root question and root issue here are why is there war. The answer? I can only speculate, but I believe it has a strong relationship with worldly ideologies. The way I see it, there are ONLY two ways to achieve a war-less world.

1) One mindset takes over. A total, enveloping consciousness, controlling every mind on the planet. No independent thought is seen, heard, or known. The entire global populace becomes what some would call, ?vegetables.?

2) The end of the world, whatever you want to call it. Revelation, Judgment Day, Apocalypse, Thermonuclear Warfare (?The Apple Core? Look for it in my post history. It?s a poem I wrote. It explains my views pretty much exactly.)

To put it simply, or as best as I can right now (I?m totally mind nuked. School is taking a lot out of me, lol. Long days, long classes. Welcome to college. Heh.), there is no reality. There is no truth. There is no right or wrong. There is only what we see here now, and what WE see is totally different from what THEY see. Thus, there is no right or wrong; there is no black and white. Hell, I don?t even think there are shades of gray. It?s nothing but us. And the ?us? is so non-unified and full of fractured perspective, that there will never be any way to fully achieve unity until we reach one of the two end results I mentioned above.

Yeah, I think I?m done for now.

EDIT: And to answer Charlie's last post. Simple. No one can.

[Adahn]

You just had to say there's no right and wrong, didn't you? *sigh* You do know that this is going to turn into another religion thread, don't you? Go ahead Drix, you know you want to...

[CB Shin]

This arguement(specificly mine) is getting no where, so here's the summary of what I thought about all the topics above. I disagree with war and that it is never justified. I DO however realize its neccesity in life. If there were no war, America would not be the SuperPower it is today. The revolutionary war was a war for "Freedom" but to Britian, we were still a bunch of rebels. Every war has a motive, whether it would make sense to you or not. What was the motive with the war in Iraq? The United States security, correct? We struck first before they could was the point. Wouldn't that be threatening Iraq's security? I absolutely hate Saddam and I never tried to defend him. America has been involved in far too many foreign relations. Wouldn't that make us Dictator of the world? We order a country to surrender their weapons because it threatens our security. What about our weapons and the capabilities we have? You may think that America will never use its weapons unless to defend the country, But maybe other countries feel the same way. They only antagonize the U.S because they feel threatened. But it's for OUR security. Does that make it right? I hope I have gotten my point out and no more confusion will be spread about where I stand.

[Brasil]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Adahn [/i]
[B]You just had to say there's no right and wrong, didn't you? *sigh* You do know that this is going to turn into another religion thread, don't you? Go ahead Drix, you know you want to... [/B][/QUOTE]

Excuse me, but where did I mention anything pertaining to religion? Nowhere. I mentioned the end of the world, but it was a list of terms.

And, if you are indeed applying to college at 16 or 17 years old, then you SHOULD KNOW about post-modernism. That's what I was talking about, not religion. Post-modernism deals with the fact that there is no true reality, fractured perspective and the like. If you don't know what I'm talking about, then don't reply and accuse me of leading into religion. Because I wasn't.

And frankly, if Drix does reply and debate the points I made, he's just proving my point. There is no set truth or reality, only what the individual thinks, leading back to my original points saying there is no true reality, meaning I cannot say what is right in this world, nor can Drix. You can't, none of us can.


EDIT: Shin, precisely the idea. That is precisely the idea. Fractured perspective. Nice point. There can never be a "true" view, only what a person sees.

[Adahn]

I did not mean to say that you, poisontongue, mentioned religion in anyway. You merely brought up the topic/debate of absolute truth vs. relative truth. If I know Drix, (and I do know him) then he will reply to you and explain another perspective, which has alot to do with religion. If he doesn't reply, then it will be because of a great effort of will on his part. I truly am sorry if you thought I meant you were going to bring it up, I just wanted to warn you that it is very likely this will go off-topic if Drix replies the way I believe he will. However, if he doesn't, I will try to explain myself as best as I can, even though what I can say will pale in comparison to what Drix would say.

Essentially, the idea of relative truth, that everyone's perspective can be different, and therefore there is no right and wrong, can be debated by the idea of a Supreme Being. I think from what I know of you, you are not a believer in God, and I hope you understand I am not trying to force my perspective on you. If there is a God, then whatever He thinks is right or wrong is an absolute right or wrong for anyone in all of Creation, whether the perspectives of mortals differ or not. It's a rather simple concept to grasp, and because of it, your "relative truth" will never be accepted by anyone who believes in a Supreme Being, whether you explain it with the most convincing logic or not.

Again, I apologize. I respect your intelligence very much, and I feel the need to clear my name in respect to your opinion of me.

[Drix D'Zanth]

Adahn, as you anticpated, I had a little talky with Senor, poision tounge:
XtremeVerbatage: Adahn apparently thinks i was leading into religion
XtremeVerbatage: i was talking about Post-Modernism
fat clown6969: Well religion has a big part in it
fat clown6969: Well you belive in Relative Truth
fat clown6969: that there is no real "truth"
XtremeVerbatage: exactly
XtremeVerbatage: Post-Modernist
fat clown6969: I belive in absolute truth
fat clown6969: There is a right and wrong.. black and white..
fat clown6969: that's just my opinion
fat clown6969: both are relative, and both absolute.. neither can be proven
XtremeVerbatage: but what i'm wondering is,
XtremeVerbatage: how in the hell did Adahn think i was talking in religious terms?
fat clown6969: Well he belives in absolute truth as well
fat clown6969: Absolute truth can only be founded upon by some higher power...
fat clown6969: Post-Modernism's "higher power" is the human mind...
fat clown6969: it is a belief system
XtremeVerbatage: ah, yes a belief system
XtremeVerbatage: but still acknowledging no set reality
fat clown6969: Post-modernism is as valid a belief system as Christianity or any other religion
XtremeVerbatage: due to fractured perspective
fat clown6969: I understand that
XtremeVerbatage: i love it.
XtremeVerbatage: lol
XtremeVerbatage: so great stuff
fat clown6969: YEs
XtremeVerbatage: the fact that,
fat clown6969: But you have to realize something, when believing in a relative truth, nothing can be justified. Some things MUST be justified
XtremeVerbatage: there is no set of anything
XtremeVerbatage: ah
XtremeVerbatage: but what must be justified
XtremeVerbatage: who thinks we must justify something?
fat clown6969: Right and Wrong, humanity's consciousness
fat clown6969: That's what people are trying to do in the message board, justify the political and social rammifications of a war on Iraq
XtremeVerbatage: but what if there is no justification?
XtremeVerbatage: no matter even on justification
fat clown6969: That's the difference between our difinitive philosophies
XtremeVerbatage: that sounded incoherent
XtremeVerbatage: hehe
fat clown6969: I agree
fat clown6969: I understand both of them
XtremeVerbatage: i've totally been scatterbrained all day
fat clown6969: I've once belived in Sophism for a point
fat clown6969: it's ok
fat clown6969: But when you say that.. some of the worst things in history are perfectly acceptable, nay, they need no acknowledgment. Human consciousness, human emotions, are all irellevant
fat clown6969: Truth is irrelivant.
XtremeVerbatage: explain further
XtremeVerbatage: so i may better in kind reply
fat clown6969: Alright , I'll give you an example: Kindness
fat clown6969: How can you define kindness with some sort of structure, some bias on what is right or wrong?
XtremeVerbatage: simple
XtremeVerbatage: you can't
fat clown6969: exactly.
XtremeVerbatage: everyone has their own opinion on the matter
fat clown6969: your right, but I belive there is a CORRECT opinion.. as odd as that sounds
XtremeVerbatage: absolute truth
XtremeVerbatage: or pertaining to it
fat clown6969: Because I'm a christian, I belive God is arbitrary in everything, he is the only person who can unchangingly define something as vauge as an emotion
fat clown6969: Even that is relative.. people have opinions on religion right?
fat clown6969: so religion CANT be right if people aren't forced to agree with it RIGHT?
fat clown6969: But then again, by belieiving in absolute truth, those people are WRONG because of the higher power's unyeilding omnipotence!
fat clown6969: It's a viscious circle
fat clown6969: heh.. mind nuke to the ****ing extreme
XtremeVerbatage: LOL
XtremeVerbatage: you see where I'm coming from
XtremeVerbatage: :-D
XtremeVerbatage: we agree
XtremeVerbatage: holy ****
fat clown6969: We agree and disagree at the same time..
XtremeVerbatage: agree to some extent
fat clown6969: It's paradoxal
XtremeVerbatage: it could destroy the universe
fat clown6969: It will
XtremeVerbatage: space and time are unraveling as we speak
XtremeVerbatage: i'll see you in the past
fat clown6969: I already saw you... in the past's future. Way back when we are going to do it. I'll be seeing you as I see you when I eventually get around to it.
XtremeVerbatage: brb
XtremeVerbatage: potty

*isn't he adorable?* *snicker*

I'm fatclown6969.

I hope that sums about everything up. It was a fairly acute discussion.. nothing too all-encompassing

[Brasil]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Adahn [/i]
[B]I did not mean to say that you, poisontongue, mentioned religion in anyway. You merely brought up the topic/debate of absolute truth vs. relative truth. If I know Drix, (and I do know him) then he will reply to you and explain another perspective, which has alot to do with religion. If he doesn't reply, then it will be because of a great effort of will on his part. I truly am sorry if you thought I meant you were going to bring it up, I just wanted to warn you that it is very likely this will go off-topic if Drix replies the way I believe he will. However, if he doesn't, I will try to explain myself as best as I can, even though what I can say will pale in comparison to what Drix would say.

Essentially, the idea of relative truth, that everyone's perspective can be different, and therefore there is no right and wrong, can be debated by the idea of a Supreme Being. I think from what I know of you, you are not a believer in God, and I hope you understand I am not trying to force my perspective on you. If there is a God, then whatever He thinks is right or wrong is an absolute right or wrong for anyone in all of Creation, whether the perspectives of mortals differ or not. It's a rather simple concept to grasp, and because of it, your "relative truth" will never be accepted by anyone who believes in a Supreme Being, whether you explain it with the most convincing logic or not.

Again, I apologize. I respect your intelligence very much, and I feel the need to clear my name in respect to your opinion of me. [/B][/QUOTE]

Good show. Nice clarification.

But, remember, as soon as different viewpoints are established (Drix, mine, yours), that is "relative truth." I go as far as to say, in expressing your "absolute truth," and in my expressing my "relative truth," the situation becomes fractured perspective, and because there are two conflicting viewpoints, there cannot be a unified idea of the two viewpoints, hence Post-Modernism, hence fractured perspective, hence "relative truth."

See what I mean? Even by expressing views related to God and "Absolute truth," you're not setting anything in stone (pardon the pun...heh...Moses type reference). You're showing a different viewpoint, as I am doing now, and we both are turning the discussion into "relative truth."

[Adahn]

Let me just say, oww, my head hurts. I may be able to reply coherently and understand what you just wrote, but I'm tired now. I'm sure you make sense right now, but if I try and understand it at this point, I'm going to get a nosebleed :). Hopefully, I'll dredge up some wisdom by tomorrow.

[Drix D'Zanth]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PoisonTongue [/i]
[B]

See what I mean? Even by expressing views related to God and "Absolute truth," you're not setting anything in stone (pardon the pun...heh...Moses type reference). You're showing a different viewpoint, as I am doing now, and we both are turning the discussion into "relative truth." [/B][/QUOTE]

Bah, and my absolute truth says your relative truth is wrong.. lol. I guess it's a viscious circle that will *again* unravel the universe....

We are going to be perpetually repeating ourselves.

We are going to be perpetually repeating ourselves.

We are going to be perpetually repeating ourselves.

We are going to be perpetually repeating ourselves.

We are going to be perpetually repeating ourselves.

We are going to be perpetually repeating ourselves...

[Brasil]

Quick related point.

Tolstoy?s White Rabbit Club. Tolstoy had this idea about a white rabbit. The premise was, all our lives we might think about a white rabbit and think nothing of it. But, as soon as we tell ourselves to NOT think of a white rabbit, we?re already contradicting ourselves, because in the action of telling ourselves to not think about a white rabbit, ?white rabbit? is already crossing our minds, hence we?re thinking about it. Vicious cycle.

Now,

Drix, we musn?t forget what ?relative truth? becomes.

As our conflicting viewpoints differ and our discussion becomes definitive of ?relative truth,? we could say that it has become unified, and I trust we are both in agreement that a unified truth is an ?absolute truth.?

So, we have:

Step 1: ?Absolute Truth A? x ?Relative Truth A? = ?Relative Truth B?
Step 2: ?Relative Truth B? = ?Absolute Truth B?

Now, therein lies the fault. Surely you agree that it is impossible to have two ?Absolute Truth.?

In essence, we have (?Absolute Truth A? vs ?Absolute Truth B?), which is inherently faulty, as there cannot be two absolutes (paradox).

Realizing the conflict between ?Absolute Truth A? and ?Absolute Truth B,? we see they are different in nature, contradicting each other (as two ?Absolute Truth? are impossible), providing a variation on fractured perspective, thus becoming ?Relative Truth.?

This abstract mathematical equation and solution that arrives at ?Relative Truth? then brings us right back to ?what is truth.?

The answer? Good question. It seems, there is no set truth; only what we, the individual, believe in.

Translation: Life?s a complicated *****, just enjoy the ride. :D

[Drix D'Zanth]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PoisonTongue [/i]
[B]So, we have:

Step 1: ?Absolute Truth A? x ?Relative Truth A? = ?Relative Truth B?
Step 2: ?Relative Truth B? = ?Absolute Truth B?

Now, therein lies the fault. Surely you agree that it is impossible to have two ?Absolute Truth.?

In essence, we have (?Absolute Truth A? vs ?Absolute Truth B?), which is inherently faulty, as there cannot be two absolutes (paradox).

Realizing the conflict between ?Absolute Truth A? and ?Absolute Truth B,? we see they are different in nature, contradicting each other (as two ?Absolute Truth? are impossible), providing a variation on fractured perspective, thus becoming ?Relative Truth.?

This abstract mathematical equation and solution that arrives at ?Relative Truth? then brings us right back to ?what is truth.?

The answer? Good question. It seems, there is no set truth; only what we, the individual, believe in.
[/B][/QUOTE]

I'll make this short and sweet.

Try this Absolute truth: Everyone will have a relative opinion. By arguing with this truth, you would only be supporting it. Every person has a relative opinion, whether it is right or wrong. Therefore, I consider relative truth to be derivative of absolute.

I belive God gave us free will, therein giving the Absolute truth that everyone has Opinions. This doesn't mean that God's opinion is WRONG, I belive in it, after all. I think that it's not the truth that makes an opinion valid as the opinions are valid within their own right. As almost hypocritical to the idea of Absolute Truth as that sounds, the fact is.. it's all Absolute.

I love this ride.

[Brasil]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Drix D'Zanth [/i]
[B]I'll make this short and sweet.

Try this Absolute truth: Everyone will have a relative opinion. By arguing with this truth, you would only be supporting it. Every person has a relative opinion, whether it is right or wrong. Therefore, I consider relative truth to be derivative of absolute.

I belive God gave us free will, therein giving the Absolute truth that everyone has Opinions. This doesn't mean that God's opinion is WRONG, I belive in it, after all. I think that it's not the truth that makes an opinion valid as the opinions are valid within their own right. As almost hypocritical to the idea of Absolute Truth as that sounds, the fact is.. it's all Absolute.

I love this ride. [/B][/QUOTE]

Good show ole chap. I think we've nipped this one in the butt.

Also, it seems that since there are derivatives of Absolute Truth, Absolute Truth has different levels and variations, turning an Absolute into Relative...making for...a quandary within an enigma within a question within a quandary within an enigma within a question on into infinity.

Ah...abstract thought...tis sweet to gorge upon the nutty notions of mind-bending logic.

I think we should apologize to anyone whose heads are now hurting. lol.