"Freedom" thread or something

BassoonAng wrote: Everyone that ever existed acts on maximizing utility.  He thought it would maximize his utility to serve the country.  That's why he chose to do it.  Furthermore, he was chosen to pick a path that he thought was best for us, not to pick the path that we agree is best for us.  That's why it's called a representative democracy.  That's why every candidate's slogan isn't "I'LL DO WHAT YOU TELL ME!"

In what way was this a response or even tangentially related to what I said? I'll repeat it for you. Regardless of this nonsense, his actions would still be up for debate. Saying, "I'm maximizing my utility function." is not really admissible as a line in a logical argument for governmental policy. Also, your notion of maximizing a country's utility is as nebulous as the concept of a country itself and subject to similar troubles with an appropriate definition.

BassoonAng wrote: You know, you have this really awesome confirmation bias that's making you see words that aren't there.  Nothing I typed hinted at no one knowing the consequences of these actions.  Don't say the military works with a "GROSS DISREGARD for civilians and children".  My uncle was in the first Gulf War and I know that's not how it happened.  Maybe that's how it was portrayed in the few backwards-ass platoons that the media uses to make you think that everyone with an American flag patched to their fatigues is a baby-killing, infidel-slaughtering animal, just like they did in the Vietnam War, but that's not how 95% of our military operates.

Oh great an anecdote from your uncle who was in the military two decades ago, in a different engagement, against a different enemy, subject to different terms of engagement, under the command of a different General and CiC, using different technology, blah blah blah.

There's very different connotations between saying "died in the process" and "were knowingly killed". The former certainly happens in war and the latter certainly happens as well. The former, while disagreeable with me, will not have me make comparisons to a domestic mass shooter, whereas the latter will.

I'll say gross disregard for civilians and children again. 

BassoonAng wrote: I said, purposefully vaguely, that thousands died, not thousands of CIVILIANS, assmunch.  And if you could recall anything from middle school history, you'd know that hundreds of British sympathizers were tarred and feathered, put in stocks, and tortured by American mobs all throughout the war.

Since we were only talking about civilian deaths, I made the natural assumption that you were only mentioning pertinent information and thus were talking about civilian deaths in this context. Actually, I still think that you were.

Got some numbers on deaths due to those activities? Regardless, how many of them where done or ordered by Washington? I have not heard of any such accounts. Unless you have some evidence of them let's move on here.

BassoonAng wrote: Law "makes for clouded judgment and comparisons without context"?  Try again, because that's exactly what laws work against.  They're made to push such things aside and quantitatively assess crime and punishment, as well as create checks and balances to maintain a healthy, functioning society.  That being said, don't think that Obama and military intelligence just walked in blindly and carpet bombed without "properly investigating" until you're politically savvy enough to be president or cunning enough to be a military strategist.  It's really cute how you think that people that managed to gain that much power and responsibility just overlook things like, oh, say... their jobs.

Let's take it one at a time.

"Makes for clouded judgement" - Law sets up an institutionalized system of right and wrong which frequently stands at odds with a man's moral judgement. It's often times contradictory, other times administrative, and never constant. Further, we still argue in this country over the interpretation of simple English sentences in the Constitution. People study the law for decades and still we have no objective interpretation of it.

"comparisons without context" - If you steal a loaf of bread you're subject the punishment in the law. This includes the three groups of people:
(1) Those who accidentally walk out of the store without paying for the loaf of bread.
(2) Those who steal a loaf of bread to starve off immediate death.
(3) Those who steal a loaf of bread from a starving man for the purpose of watching him suffer.

Complete lack of context.

I'm about tired of the rest of your nonsense so I'll ask you, when is the last time that a president lost their job for anything? When is the last time they lost it for war crimes?

BassoonAng wrote: Next time before you multiquote attack someone 5 years younger than you and twice as smart, don't do it in strikethrough, moron.

I might add twice as attractive too. Duly noted.


Edited by Equality 7-2521 - July 30 2012 at 14:59

Epignosis wrote: BassoonAng wrote: Everyone that ever existed acts on maximizing utility.  Most people don't do this.  BassoonAng wrote: He thought it would maximize his utility to serve the country.  That's why he chose to do it.  You cannot tell us what another person thinks.  Do all political leaders do what they think will serve their country well, or are some political leaders corrupt and will swiftly screw their country if they could profit from it? I'll stop there.

Actually I can.  That's simple economics.  They don't all serve their countries well, they maximize their utility.  They screw their country and profit from it.  Gaining profit yielded a higher utility gain than serving their country well.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: timothy leary wrote: You don't know how you feel but you want others to tell you how they feel about it? Okay.....just another day in politics where problems become more important than the solutions. The man did not deserve a nobel prize. You talking to me Tim? Yeah often times when I'm unsure of an answer, I ask other people about their opinions on the matter. I find this to be a fruitful endeavor.

I don't  know?

good for both of you, needing other peoples opinions to formulate your own seems to me weak, I have a mind fully equipped to come to my own conclusions

I never knew facts and opinions were synonyms

It's all well and good to come to your own conclusions, but refusing to listen to what others have to say can lead to an insular, out of touch way of thinking. Example: musicians who become so famous that they are granted freedom from editors. Without a sounding board to make sure your ideas are indeed good ones, you end up like Paul McCartney and Wings.

 "Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinion, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."

Equality 7-2521 wrote:   I might add twice as attractive too. Duly noted.

What?