"Freedom" thread or something

Aw man, Buckyballs are awesome! That makes me cry too.

Yet another way that idiot children ruin it for the rest of us.


Edited by thellama73 - July 26 2012 at 14:48

What does everyone think of this?

It's something I've essentially said here, and at crowded bars, and posted all over my facebook, and the like. I'm not sure how I feel about the billboard at this particular moment in time though.

^There is obviously a lot of differences and even here it can be understood that the idiots that occupy the white house sometimes have to make decisions with 938720381293871 influencing factors behind them so we can't say that everything comes down to the decision making of one single individual. Circumstances and realities both here and abroad have an influence. The other guy is a sole criminal who decided to kill and murder on his own and by himself. 

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.

Well said, and a pretty funny billboard.  You can't help crap like that.  Shock value seems to be very commonplace now.  The media is laden with these context-lacking comparisons, some even more subtle than this, believe it or not!

Equality 7-2521 wrote: thellama73 wrote: It's a fair point, but I don't really think there is a moral equivalence between a mass murder of moviegoers and a war that causes collateral to civilians. I know that you think war is hardly ever justified, Pat, but I have a slightly different view on it. I also think it's a little tacky to put something so inflammatory that plays on people's emotions so heavily up on a billboard to denigrate a sitting president. Even though I have nothing but bad things to say about this particular one. EDIT: I'm not saying the current wars we are involved in are justified, but I do think there are situations where war is necessary and I wouldn't agree that fighting those wars is the same thing as mass murder. Does it become justified at any ratio? Say you drop a bomb in war to kill a terrorist leader which also results in 150 civilian deaths. Is that the same thing as shooting one person in a movie theater? What if it's 200? 2000?

Yes, at some level it obviously becomes morally unacceptable. Like so many things, I couldn't tell you exactly where that level is and any attempt to do so would be necessarily arbitrary. I could turn the question around and ask if there is ever a level of collateral damage you would find acceptable (is it okay to take action to save the world from a bunch of nutjobs with nuclear weapons if it results in the death of one innocent?)

Equality 7-2521 wrote: To answer your question, I would say that both that I would find it wrong and that I would do it.

I agree with you there.

BassoonAng wrote: IObama is picking a path that maximizes his and what he decides to be the nations' best interests, however right or wrong he may be.

A path which he thinks maximizes the nation's utility (not sure how you would even appropriately define that). The very fact that this path does not do so would open him up to debate.

BassoonAng wrote: Obama followed what he thought to be the best defense strategy for the nation he's in charge of, that being his premeditated, sole purpose, and thousands died and were injured in the process.

When you say died in the process, you act as though it happened unbeknownst to the parties involved or just occurred inevitably. The entire war is conducted not just in a manner which results in collateral damage but in a manner which must necessarily result in collateral damage. It's conducted with gross disregard for civilians and children.

BassoonAng wrote: Thousands also died while fighting in the American Revolutionary War, which was fought to buy us religious, economic, and societal freedoms, thus maximizing our utility.  Is General Washington a criminal for killing thousands of British and Americans alike in the process?

I don't remember many British civilians being killed by Washington. Something about them all being across an ocean probably helped. 

BassoonAng wrote: This argument boils down to intentions, actions, and where such factors intercede with law.  Morality makes for clouded judgment and comparisons without context.

Huh? That's what you think morality does? That's what law does. Morality's a bit different. I'll agree that the argument boils down to actions and inaction. Actions on the part of the president to order air strikes and drone warfare that it was known a priori would kill innocents and the inaction to properly investigate and try people responsible for acting outside of the rules of engagement.


Edited by Equality 7-2521 - July 30 2012 at 14:10

BassoonAng wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Does it become justified at any ratio? Say you drop a bomb in war to kill a terrorist leader which also results in 150 civilian deaths. Is that the same thing as shooting one person in a movie theater? What if it's 200? 2000? To be frank, our military would not use missiles that crude.  We're much more advanced than that.  A real casualty estimation would be around 20, and likely that most of them are affiliated with terrorist activities anyhow (bodyguards and other terrorist coordinators around the terrorist leader we're targetting).  That, it would benefit America and the loss of a few innocent people in a sh*t part of the world over half the world away won't effect me or any of you a fraction of smidgen.  So yes, I'd drop that bomb in a heartbeat if I didn't have any repercussions of being incriminated, etc.  I may be an immoral b*****d, but whatever, that's my stand.  I just don't have that much respect, empathy, conscience, whatever.  Wanna make an omelette, gotta crack some eggs.  If I were in the oval office as the big man himself, I obviously wouldn't do this because the media would tear me seven new a****les.

Looks like we can add a third person to that billboard. This is one of the most disgusting things I've read on this forum in the past ten years.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: A path which he thinks maximizes the nation's utility (not sure how you would even appropriately define that). The very fact that this path does not do so would open him up to debate.

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!"

Equality 7-2521 wrote: When you say died in the process, you act as though it happened unbeknownst to the parties involved or just occurred inevitably. The entire war is conducted not just in a manner which results in collateral damage but in a manner which must necessarily result in collateral damage. It's conducted with gross disregard for civilians and children.

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.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: I don't remember many British civilians being killed by Washington. Something about them all being across an ocean probably helped.

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.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Huh? That's what you think morality does? That's what law does. Morality's a bit different. I'll agree that the argument boils down to actions and inaction. Actions on the part of the president to order air strikes and drone warfare that it was known a priori would kill innocents and the inaction to properly investigate and try people responsible for acting outside of the rules of engagement.

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. 

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

BassoonAng wrote: If I were in the oval office...

Remind me never to vote for you if you do end up running for something.