Page 2 of 2

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2007 8:21 am
by RicDemian
Xunzian wrote:Yeah . . .

'Cause it was the USSR that funded the Taliban and put them in power. Riiiiight.

There is honestly so much wrong with that post that I don't know where to begin.

1) Why is America the enemy? This is unaddressed and assumed in your post. Generally people become enemies for particular reasons (even if those reasons aren't reasonable).

2) Islam has 5 pillars. Some consider Jihad to be a sixth 'unofficial' pillar. Your analysis of Islam is incredibly ignorant. So much so that it frightens me.

3) I do agree with your analysis of fundamentalist Islam. That is, for the most part, the 'stick' end of religion that gets emphasized in any fundamentalism. Your point?


This, I thought was most revealing, "Think before you post your unconscious keystrokes. If we still had a cold war enemy, it would exploit any disadvantage we had to damage our interests." This statement is totally 100% true, except that it wasn't the Soviets backing fundamentalist Islam for that purpose . . .

Honestly, I've tried to respond to your post as best I could, but it is really a mish-mash of non-sequiturs followed by vitrolic rhetoric. It is also devoid of any logical coherency. Your overall argument is both unsound and invalid. Shockingly so.


I had to edit to avoid double posting. I'm going to take this to a new thread. This obviously has nothing to do with which presidents we esteem the most. I'll keep the thread within Social Sciences and Label it "Islamic Extremism: The Seeds of Terror" Not now, but tomorrow pm. BTW, Harris' book has no trace of Hegel. You're thinking of Huntington's "The Clash of Civilizations". edit: Or did you mean Lee Harris's "Civilization and Its Enemies", which admittedly is influenced by Hegel.

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2007 2:43 pm
by Xunzian
I'll wait for the new thread. Though I will say that Harris's thoughts are extremely influenced by Hegel because he does take an idea-driven model of history and action (that plays a huge role in his criticisms of religion, especially Islam). This contrasts strongly with his postion as a neuroscientist claiming that the human mind can be reduced to physical.

One really can't have it both ways. Either thought is part of the physical response to a given stimulus (the neuroscientist's view and one that he has espoused before) or thought is qualitatively different from other responses and is able to be generative in some way. For history to be thought-driven, then you require the latter view.

His views on how thoughts come to be is in direct conflict with how he feels thoughts operate.


As for starting a new thread, it is worth noting that you'll be shifting the grounds on which this disagreement started (which is fine), however, it doesn't address the non-sequitur nature of your response. I think the question is interesting enough to persue, so I'm fine with that.

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2007 7:57 pm
by detrop
The best president was the president who died the quickest after being elected into office, or who left office the quickest after being elected.

So as a rule of thumb, a good Amercian president is a dead Amercian president.

PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2007 4:15 am
by RicDemian
Xunzian wrote:I'll wait for the new thread. Though I will say that Harris's thoughts are extremely influenced by Hegel because he does take an idea-driven model of history and action (that plays a huge role in his criticisms of religion, especially Islam). This contrasts strongly with his postion as a neuroscientist claiming that the human mind can be reduced to physical.

One really can't have it both ways. Either thought is part of the physical response to a given stimulus (the neuroscientist's view and one that he has espoused before) or thought is qualitatively different from other responses and is able to be generative in some way. For history to be thought-driven, then you require the latter view.

His views on how thoughts come to be is in direct conflict with how he feels thoughts operate.

You're talking about the wrong Harris, but I know the one you mean. LEE Harris, right? He does take a Hegelian approach. I was referrinjg to Sam Harris, whose work, "The End of Faith", is a deconstruction of religion generally, and has no reference to or flavor of Hegel.. I'm starting a new thread because this engagement has nothing to do with who the best president is. And do me the courtesy of specifying what sin of non-sequitur you keep referring to. If I made an unrelated assertion following a previous remark, that's not a non-sequitur. It's just moving on.


As for starting a new thread, it is worth noting that you'll be shifting the grounds on which this disagreement started (which is fine), however, it doesn't address the non-sequitur nature of your response. I think the question is interesting enough to persue, so I'm fine with that.

PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2007 8:57 am
by Mr Reasonable
I really expected you to say Truman Detrop.

PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2007 9:53 am
by RicDemian
Xunzian wrote:I'll wait for the new thread. Though I will say that Harris's thoughts are extremely influenced by Hegel because he does take an idea-driven model of history and action (that plays a huge role in his criticisms of religion, especially Islam). This contrasts strongly with his postion as a neuroscientist claiming that the human mind can be reduced to physical.

One really can't have it both ways. Either thought is part of the physical response to a given stimulus (the neuroscientist's view and one that he has espoused before) or thought is qualitatively different from other responses and is able to be generative in some way. For history to be thought-driven, then you require the latter view.

His views on how thoughts come to be is in direct conflict with how he feels thoughts operate.



As for starting a new thread, it is worth noting that you'll be shifting the grounds on which this disagreement started (which is fine), however, it doesn't address the non-sequitur nature of your response. I think the


question is interesting enough to persue, so I'm fine with that.



[i]You must have read a short abstract of some piece of Harris's. You haven't read the book in question and you're constantly finding something to snivel about. Make arguments when you address me. Save the snivelling and complaining about ghosts for someone who cares. I like substantive argument, not cries of "OH! He's Idea driven! Like Hegel!! ' Read him squash pernicious religions, one of which I suspect you subscribe to, in "End of Faith". He's gentler than Dawkins, or is Dawkins "idea driven" and damned too?

PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2007 4:01 pm
by detrop
I really expected you to say Truman Detrop.


Regardless of his Marshall plan and pact with remaining communist countries, which was only a moral front so he would gain allied nations support in establishing capitalism (spreading the disease) in communist countries, as well as a means to hinder Russia's competition in the cold war, he authorized the use of the atomic bomb on Japan, a country which attacked America because it ordered an embargo on trade in the first fucking place.

I stand by my claims: a good American president is a dead American president.

PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2007 4:21 pm
by Xunzian
Dawkins is also idea driven, and as an ardent materialist, completely falls flat on his face because of it.

PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2007 5:57 pm
by Warshed
détrop wrote:The best president was the president who died the quickest after being elected into office, or who left office the quickest after being elected.

So as a rule of thumb, a good Amercian president is a dead Amercian president.


If you would have read the thread you would have seen that I already posted what you said. It is William Henry Harrison.

Greatest Presidents? How About 43rd or 42nd Greatest?

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2007 3:00 am
by RicDemian
I would like to go further down the list of our greatest presidents. The greatest on my list are, for the record:

1.Lincoln
2.FDR
3.Reagan
4.Washington
5.TR
6.Wilson
7.Polk
8.Jefferson
9.Truman
10.Gore
....

42. Carter
43.GW Bush

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2007 3:11 am
by Mr Reasonable
Was Gore president?

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2007 4:52 am
by RicDemian
ScottMears wrote:Was Gore president?


Of course I was lightheartedly referring to the fact that he was the real winner of Election 2000. But no one can prove it, just repeat what's generally admitted. For instance, thousands of Gore supporters inadvertently marked the square next to Buchanan, depriving Gore of more than enough votes to take Fla. Go see my reply to your Royal Rumble of Philosopher Heavies and Kant. I'm posting more philosophy now that I've found real philosophy threads. Didn't know where they were hiding.

PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2007 10:08 pm
by Mr Reasonable
There's no way Gore could take FL. Jeb Bush was the governor!

PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2007 8:29 pm
by Jakob
Xunzian wrote:To the poster who suggested that the USSR and militant Islam would join forces . . . wtf?

Indeed, the Sowiets had militant Islam as bitter enemies long before the modern west realized it's destructive potential. I think there always has been some measure respect between the USSR and the USA - both politically realistic and culturally sophisticated states of science.
militant Islam as a political entity does not relate in any way to the words science or respect. In that sense it is a common enemy to the US and Russia, and will be to the end, if that may come.

I vote for JFK, by the way, because of his balls of steel in the Cuban missile crisis.

PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2007 12:49 pm
by Kriswest
détrop wrote:The best president was the president who died the quickest after being elected into office, or who left office the quickest after being elected.

So as a rule of thumb, a good Amercian president is a dead Amercian president.



Ditto in Spades.

Re: Who is the greatest US president?

PostPosted: Fri Feb 21, 2020 7:13 am
by surreptitious75
America no longer produces great presidents as she did in the early days
The last good one was probably Kennedy but no one great in my lifetime

Johnson had to retire early because of Vietnam
Nixon still the only one to resign while in office
Ford wasnt expected to became president at all
Carter was one of the weakest America ever had
Reagan allowed the CIA to control the drugs trade
Bush was another weak one as he only did one term
Clinton was impeached and could not keep it in his pants
Bush had a reputation for saying stupid things all of the time
Obama bombed more than Bush did even though he was a liberal
Do any of them compare to those five great men on Mount Rushmore

Re: Who is the greatest US president?

PostPosted: Fri Feb 21, 2020 4:54 pm
by Peter Kropotkin
and who exactly are the "5 great men on Mount Rushmore"?

I've seen it and there are only 4 presidents on Rushmore, not 5.

Kropotkin

Re: Who is the greatest US president?

PostPosted: Sat Feb 22, 2020 5:16 am
by zinnat
The rise of Taliban And most of the other Islamic extemist forces is because either of USSR or US.

US the main colprit for the rise of Taliban. taliban got lot of help from US And CIA to counter the USSR invasion (so called) of Afganistan. At that time, taliban were presented as International heros in the western media. Have people fogotten Rambo series! But, the things went out from US hands once taliban realized that US will turn them into like the lame leadership of pakistan. They refused to accept that fate and chose to fight US instead. That is all the story of taliban.

read this carefully-[quote]Operation Cyclone was the code name for the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) program to arm and finance the mujahideen (jihadists) in Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989, prior to and during the military intervention by the USSR in support of its client, the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. The program leaned heavily towards supporting militant Islamic groups that were favored by the regime of Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq in neighboring Pakistan, rather than other, less ideological Afghan resistance groups that had also been fighting the Marxist-oriented Democratic Republic of Afghanistan regime since before the Soviet intervention.[1]

Now, See this picture carefully-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Reagan_sitting_with_people_from_the_Afghanistan-Pakistan_region_in_February_1983.jpg

Not only that, Regan publically praised taliban ang called them freedom fighters. I can find that quote too.

With love,
sanjay