View Full Version : Is it wise to permit those rooting for Armageddon to influence our foreign policy?
http://www.rr-bb.com/forumdisplay.php?f=20
I'm not suggesting that these people on RaptureReady.com have direct inifluence anymore than people here on ChiefsPlanet do.
But it does seem to me a bad idea (and one of the risks of any democracy) that such fatalistic, short-term thinking folks influence policy decisions.
It's just an interesting discussion topic. I'm not calling to round up or kill these folks even though their world view seems to be right in line with suicide bombers and the like.
Cochise
07-14-2006, 04:57 PM
The world would be so much of a better place if there were just no Christians. If only there were some way to remove them all from the earth, eh?
Donger
07-14-2006, 05:00 PM
I'm not suggesting that these people on RaptureReady.com have direct inifluence anymore than people here on ChiefsPlanet do.
But it does seem to me a bad idea (and one of the risks of any democracy) that such fatalistic, short-term thinking folks influence policy decisions.
So, you're not suggesting that they have any direct influence in policy decisions, but you think it's a bad idea that they influence policy decisions.
Yeah, that makes sense.
The world would be so much of a better place if there were just no Christians. If only there were some way to remove them all from the earth, eh?
More projecting the views of a minority (rapturists) onto an entire popoulation (christians) in order to score points?
Does anyone have anything intelligent to say?
Adept Havelock
07-14-2006, 05:01 PM
The world would be so much of a better place if there were just no Christians. If only there were some way to remove them all from the earth, eh?
Hardly. However, keeping nutjob apocalypticists to the fringes of society, away from the levers of power, strikes me as common sense. :shrug:
Thankfully, most religious folk dismiss these loons for what they are.
So, you're not suggesting that they have any direct influence in policy decisions, but you think it's a bad idea that they influence policy decisions.
Yeah, that makes sense.
You were once a man who seemed quite bright. Bright enough to understand the difference between the concepts of "direct" vs. "indirect". What happened?
Baby Lee
07-14-2006, 05:04 PM
Bright enough to understand the difference between the concepts of "direct" vs. "indirect".
Is that the same as the difference between petitioning the government on issues important to you and voting in elections;
and;
being named emporer for life?
Donger
07-14-2006, 05:04 PM
You were once a man who seemed quite bright. Bright enough to understand the difference between the concepts of "direct" vs. "indirect". What happened?
What makes you think that they have any indirect influence on policy decisions? Or is this another mistaken assumption of yours, like "Bush let the North Koreans get the bomb!"?
Hardly. However, keeping nutjob apocalypticists to the fringes of society, away from the levers of power, strikes me as common sense. :shrug:
Assuming a bit of this "common sense" were to exist widely across this forum... what might it look like? Specificaly what steps would best be taken to ensure that a group of nihilists don't move from indirect power (voting) to direct power (powerful elected official)?
Seems like one place to start would certainly have to be trying to change a culture that thinks the end is upon us (and seemed blissful about that).
What makes you think that they have any indirect influence on policy decisions? Or is this another mistake of yours, like "Bush let the North Koreans get the bomb!"?
So are you trying to suggest that citizens have no influence on policy decisions? Do you have some inside info about rigged elections you'd like to share?
...the difference between petitioning the government on issues important to you and voting in elections;
and
Being an elected official in a position of direct power.
I would never imagined the first 10 posts would be mostly me explaining the notion of direct vs indirect power in a representative democracy. I figured those concepts would have been addressed by the 10th or 11th grade at least.
Adept Havelock
07-14-2006, 05:10 PM
Assuming a bit of this "common sense" were to exist widely across this forum... what might it look like? Specificaly what steps would best be taken to ensure that a group of nihilists don't move from indirect power (voting) to direct power (powerful elected official)?
Seems like one place to start would certainly have to be trying to change a culture that thinks the end is upon us (and seemed blissful about that).
:hmmm:
I think the nutjobs do a pretty good job of scaring reasonable people enough they don't have much of a chance to get to direct power.
As for a "culture that thinks the end is upon us", the idiots that are "blissful" about it can enjoy their Jenkins/LaHaye authored Tom-Clancy ripoffs and invest in "In case of rapture...." bumper stickers. Maybe it will help with the vast disappointment they will experience if things actually do collapse, and they are stuck here with the mess, just like the rest of us.
I can see them now, wandering around whining "but we were told we had a get out of the apocolypse free card!" :p
Donger
07-14-2006, 05:12 PM
So are you trying to suggest that citizens have no influence on policy decisions? Do you have some inside info about rigged elections you'd like to share?
The fringe groups, like these folks? No, I don't. To have even indirect influence, they have to have numbers or money, preferably both.
Do you have some evidence that they have either?
Donger
07-14-2006, 05:13 PM
I would never imagined the first 10 posts would be mostly me explaining the notion of direct vs indirect power in a representative democracy. I figured those concepts would have been addressed by the 10th or 11th grade at least.
Heh. Says the guy that doesn't even know what a nuclear weapon is.
...is this another mistaken assumption of yours, like "Bush let the North Koreans get the bomb!"?
I find it funny that your statement assumes that my statement was false. Couldn't you have at least left yourself some wiggle room to not make a mistaken assumption in the very post you are hoping to scold me for supposedly doing the same? I guess if you are stuggling with the basic concepts of a representative democracy I should expect much at all from you anymore.
Baby Lee
07-14-2006, 05:15 PM
I would never imagined the first 10 posts would be mostly me explaining the notion of direct vs indirect power in a representative democracy. I figured those concepts would have been addressed by the 10th or 11th grade at least.
You might have tried to phrase your question better. You posit that they don't have 'direct influence' but question whether they should be allowed to have 'influence.'
So what are we contemplating, whether 'they' should be allowed to vote? Whether they should be allowed to lobby, to organize, to run for office, to be elected, what? What portion of democracy are we talking about curtailing?
I don't think you even know what you are asking.
The fringe groups, like these folks? No, I don't. To have even indirect influence, they have to have numbers or money, preferably both.
Do you have some evidence that they have either?
You struggle with even basic logic at this point if it will help you get out of a jam.
There is a HUGE distinction between 0 and 0.0000000000000000000000000000001. It's like the difference between your chances of winning the lottery if you buy only 1 ticket or don't buy a ticket at all.
No matter how hard you try, you can't make the infuence of even the smallest group of people zero.
Donger
07-14-2006, 05:19 PM
I find it funny that your statement assumes that my statement was false. Couldn't you have at least left yourself some wiggle room to not make a mistaken assumption in the very post you are hoping to scold me for supposedly doing the same? I guess if you are stuggling with the basic concepts of a representative democracy I should expect much at all from you anymore.
And, I shouldn't expect someone so pathetically arrogant to admit an error. It's almost clinical.
It's simple, jAZ.
You said, "Bush let them get the bomb."
Well, we don't know if the North Koreans even has a nuclear weapon, let alone if they do, that Bush "let them get it." So, you were wrong. That's all.
Donger
07-14-2006, 05:21 PM
You struggle with even basic logic at this point if it will help you get out of a jam.
There is a HUGE distinction between 0 and 0.0000000000000000000000000000001. It's like the difference between your chances of winning the lottery if you buy only 1 ticket or don't buy a ticket at all.
No matter how hard you try, you can't make the infuence of even the smallest group of people zero.
Sure there is a difference. But to influence POLICY, even indirectly, they would have to significant power or money.
Do they have either?
Adept Havelock
07-14-2006, 05:23 PM
No matter how hard you try, you can't make the infuence of even the smallest group of people zero.
Sure you can. Stalin had an effective plan for it, based on Lenin and Dzerzhinsky's original blueprint. :rolleyes:
So you've gone from arguing they should have no "direct" influence, to no influence whatsoever? Intentionally or not, you are calling for a philosphical litmus test for participation in a Democratic Republic.
"We had to destroy the Democratic Republic, in order to save it." :p
It's pretty clear what you're trying to say here. Evangelicals support Bush (the debbil), and Evangelicals are the most likely to support Apocalypticists. Therefore, Bush is trying to end the world so he can be with the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
:lame:
You might have tried to phrase your question better. You posit that they don't have 'direct influence' but question whether they should be allowed to have 'influence.'
Actually, my point is perfectly clear and accurately worded.
I'm not asserting that we have elected a Rapturist to a position of power and "direct influence" (ie, being President, a Senator, etc.) but question whether we should allow people with this view any level of "influence" (ie, a voice in the discussion, a seat a the table, a vote in some election, a place on the ballot, a seat in Congress, a home in the Whitehouse, etc.).
It's not a simple question to answer... but it's not a hard question to understand.
So you've gone from arguing they should have no "direct" influence, to no influence whatsoever? Intentionally or not, you are calling for a philosphical litmus test for participation in a Democratic Republic.
At what point did I argue any of these points?
Adept Havelock
07-14-2006, 05:30 PM
At what point did I argue any of these points?
:rolleyes:
But it does seem to me a bad idea (and one of the risks of any democracy) that such fatalistic, short-term thinking folks influence policy decisions.
I'm not asserting that we have elected a Rapturist to a position of power and "direct influence" (ie, being President, a Senator, etc.) but question whether we should allow people with this view any level of "influence" (ie, a voice in the discussion, a seat a the table, a vote in some election, a place on the ballot, a seat in Congress, a home in the Whitehouse, etc.).
You are clearly suggesting that an elected official should be limited in their power because of a religious/philosophical view.
Here's a novel thought jAZ, why not let the ballot box decide it? If the people want a nutjob, let them elect one and deal with it.
Donger
07-14-2006, 05:32 PM
Actually, my point is perfectly clear and accurately worded.
I'm not asserting that we have elected a Rapturist to a position of power and "direct influence" (ie, being President, a Senator, etc.) but question whether we should allow people with this view any level of "influence" (ie, a voice in the discussion, a seat a the table, a vote in some election, a place on the ballot, a seat in Congress, a home in the Whitehouse, etc.).
It's not a simple question to answer... but it's not a hard question to understand.
So, what's your take, jAZ?
Personally, I think we should 'allow' any person that meets the requirements to vote to do so, regardless of their religious, philosophical or any other beliefs.
Adept Havelock
07-14-2006, 05:34 PM
So, what's your take, jAZ?
Personally, I think we should 'allow' any person that meets the requirements to vote to do so, regardless of their religious, philosophical or any other beliefs.
:clap:
So, you were wrong.
The only way to make this statement is to assume that Bush didn't let them get the bomb. Which by your criteria would make your statement equal to mine. Leaving the only distinction to be the evidence available to provide. I have NK's assertions to support my claim. You have refused to provide ANYTHING to support your claim.
In the same way that I can't know the mind of God, I can't know if NK is telling the truth, but I certainly have shown more evidence to support my case than you have shown to support yours.
Donger
07-14-2006, 05:39 PM
The only way to make this statement is to assume that Bush didn't let them get the bomb. Which by your criteria would make your statement equal to mine. Leaving the only distinction to be the evidence available to provide. I have NK's assertions to support my claim. You have refused to provide ANYTHING to support your claim.
In the same way that I can't know the mind of God, I can't know if NK is telling the truth, but I certainly have shown more evidence to support my case than you have shown to support yours.
ROFL
No, jAZ. I don't know if North Korea has the bomb or not. I didn't make the assertion that they do; you did.
But by all means, continue. It's amusing in a bizarre way.
Always a Chief fan
07-14-2006, 05:43 PM
Jaz, you are out of your mind. Get the tinfoil out and start making your hat. What the hell is wrong with you?
Adept Havelock
07-14-2006, 05:44 PM
ROFL
But by all means, continue. It's amusing in a bizarre way.
Yes it is. In a sad, tragic, left wing recxjake kind of way. :p
:rolleyes: You are clearly suggesting that an elected official should be limited in their power because of a religious/philosophical view.
Hardly... I said it's a bad idea, and was making the same point you seemed to be when you said "keeping nutjob apocalypticists to the fringes of society, away from the levers of power, strikes me as common sense".
I did NOT yet express any sort of proposed solution. Nor did I say that they "should have no "direct" influence ... (or) no influence whatsoever".
As I said from the beginning... It's just an interesting discussion topic.
It's interesting because it's a bit of a moral dilemma. If you permit someone to take power who's views are such that they might destroy the planet in an effort to bring Armageddon... and they are successful... then the notion of democracy becomes worthless (as we are all dead).
If you put in place policies that "limit() ... power (based upon) a religious/philosophical view" then you are also tossing out democracy.
As I've said in a prior post...
Seems like one place to start would certainly have to be trying to change a culture that thinks the end is upon us (and seemed blissful about that).
Here's a novel thought jAZ, why not let the ballot box decide it? If the people want a nutjob, let them elect one and deal with it.
That's certainly how we handle it now. It's also the underlying assumption to my prior post about changing culture. However, it's also in conflict with our preemptive doctrine used to support going to war in Iraq that says that we can't any risks in situations that have apocalyptic consequences.
ROFL
No, jAZ. I don't know if North Korea has the bomb or not. I didn't make the assertion that they do; you did.
You did make the unqualified assertion that my claim was wrong. While simutaneously knowing that you don't know if my claim is wrong or not.
Donger
07-14-2006, 05:57 PM
You did make the unqualified assertion that my claim was wrong.
Wow.
"Bush gave them the bomb."
1. We don't know that the North Koreans have nuclear weapons. Therefore, it is wrong to say that the North Koreans have nuclear weapons, as you do above.
2. Even if they do, we don't know that Bush gave them to the North Koreans.
So, you were actually wrong twice in one assertion. That's even funnier. And the fact that you keep going on with this instead of having the balls to admit that you were incorrect is priceless.
Yes it is. In a sad, tragic, left wing recxjake kind of way. :p
Hardly.
Donger is trying to declare that my assertion ("Bush let them have the bomb") is "wrong". At the same time, he admits that he is unable to know if they do or don't. He doesn't know... but yet will assert that I'm wrong.
The logic is (again) perfectly clear.
Wow.
"Bush gave them the bomb."
1. We don't know that the North Koreans have nuclear weapons. Therefore, it is wrong to say that the North Koreans have nuclear weapons, as you do above.
2. Even if they do, we don't know that Bush gave them to the North Koreans.
So, you were actually wrong twice in one assertion. That's even funnier. And the fact that you keep going on with this instead of having the balls to admit that you were incorrect is priceless.
Did Bush give them the Bomb?
Your options..
a) Yes
b) No
c) Donger doesn't know
Donger
07-14-2006, 06:01 PM
Did Bush give them the Bomb?
Your options..
a) Yes
b) No
c) Donger doesn't know
C, obviously.
Now, for you.
Does North Korea have the bomb?
Your options..
a) Yes
b) No
c) jAZ doesn't know
So, what's your take, jAZ?
Personally, I think we should 'allow' any person that meets the requirements to vote to do so, regardless of their religious, philosophical or any other beliefs.
:clap:
I'll repost my first thoughts...
Seems like one place to start would certainly have to be trying to change a culture that thinks the end is upon us (and seemed blissful about that).
Adept Havelock
07-14-2006, 06:03 PM
C, obviously.
Now, for you.
Does North Korea have the bomb?
Your options..
a) Yes
b) No
c) jAZ doesn't know
D. Gaz, under duress, constructed the NK nuke-u-lar arsenal.
Ultra Peanut
07-14-2006, 06:04 PM
The world would be so much of a better place if there were just no Christians. If only there were some way to remove them all from the earth, eh?Godwin FTL
C, obviously.
So you can not possibly assert that my statement is either true or false (without qualification) as you have done repeatedly.
Does North Korea have the bomb?
Your options..
a) Yes
b) No
c) jAZ doesn't know
C, but evidence suggests that a) they do, and b) the acquired it on Bush's watch.
So you can not possibly assert that my statement is either true or false (without qualification) as you have done repeatedly.
And the fact that you keep going on with this instead of having the balls to admit that you were incorrect is priceless.
Donger
07-14-2006, 06:12 PM
So you can not possibly assert that my statement is either true or false (without qualification) as you have done repeatedly.
C, but evidence suggests that a) they do, and b) the acquired it on Bush's watch.
ROFL
Your assertion MAY be correct. And it also MAY be wrong. As we both agree, neither of us know.
So, when you said, "Bush gave them the bomb," you were incorrect, period.
You don't know, and you made a claim that you can't confirm. I understand you're embarassed about being ignorant to the fact, but give it a rest already.
Hydrae
07-14-2006, 06:20 PM
Interesting how the argument from one thread has bled into this one. We start talking about ultra-fundamentalist christians and wind up rediscussing NK and nukes. :shrug:
As to the original topic, people like these nutjobs have thought the world was coming to an end since about a week after Jesus ascended into the clouds. There is nothing that can be done to stop this unless you want to end Christianity as a religion. Otherwise there really is no point in this discussion.
Did the people posting on that forum bother me? Sure, anyone being gleeful about the death of others for whatever reason is downright sickening to me. Is there anything you or I can do about it? Hahahahaha No.
stevieray
07-14-2006, 06:20 PM
depends on your definition of "is".
So, when you said, "Bush gave them the bomb," you were incorrect, period.
Horseshit.
The only thing you can say is that "you don't *know* that to be fact" (or some variant). You can't say "you were incorrect". Hell, I could have based my statement on the toss of a coin, and you still couldn't say that I "was wrong".
Donger
07-14-2006, 06:37 PM
Horseshit.
The only thing you can say is that "you don't *know* that to be fact" (or some variant). You can't say "you were incorrect". Hell, I could have based my statement on the toss of a coin, and you still couldn't say that I "was wrong".
Last post for a while, since I've got ribeyes to grill! Wohoo!
Absolutely. I don't know if "Bush gave them the bomb" or not.
But, see, I'm not the one who wrote "Bush gave them the bomb," now am I? That's a statement of fact, not belief, and you made it. And it's wrong, since we don't know if they do or do not have nuclear weapons.
Anyway, thanks again for once again demonstrating your pathological insanity with regards to not being able to admit an error. It is the absolute height of arrogance, and it's pretty damn funny!
FringeNC
07-14-2006, 06:52 PM
Should discredited Stalinists at DU and Kos be permited to influence our foreign policy?
WilliamTheIrish
07-14-2006, 07:29 PM
I would never imagined the first 10 posts would be mostly me explaining the notion of direct vs indirect power in a representative democracy. I figured those concepts would have been addressed by the 10th or 11th grade at least.
Have you forgotten where you are?
Adept Havelock
07-14-2006, 07:34 PM
Should discredited Stalinists at DU and Kos be permited to influence our foreign policy?
ROFL
Only if the discredited fascists at Free Republic are allowed to. Quid pro quo. ;)
Baby Lee
07-14-2006, 07:38 PM
You did make the unqualified assertion that my claim was wrong. While simutaneously knowing that you don't know if my claim is wrong or not.
Your claim is one of certainty. As there is uncertainty, your assertion of certainty is erroneous.
It goes like this;
Assertion: God hates jAZ. . . And you cannot prove me wrong.
patteeu
07-14-2006, 08:38 PM
I'd rather have people who root for Armageddon influencing our foreign policy than people who root for World government at the expense of US sovereignty or people who would rather get the approval of foreign powers than protect our national interests.
Adept Havelock
07-14-2006, 08:43 PM
I'd rather have people who root for Armageddon influencing our foreign policy than people who root for World government at the expense of US sovereignty or people who would rather get the approval of foreign powers than protect our national interests.
Ah yes. patty, supporting the "If I can't have it my way, I'll toss over the board and end the world" mindset. :p
As your ideals seem as unlikely to be enacted as jAZ's, may I suggest this group for you:
<a href="http://www.vhemt.org/">The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement</a>
While equally nutty, these folks ideas seem to involve a bit less suffering than the run of the mill apocalypticists.
patteeu
07-14-2006, 09:14 PM
Ah yes. patty, supporting the "If I can't have it my way, I'll toss over the board and end the world" mindset. :p
As your ideals seem as unlikely to be enacted as jAZ's, may I suggest this group for you:
<a href="http://www.vhemt.org/">The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement</a>
While equally nutty, these folks ideas seem to involve a bit less suffering than the run of the mill apocalypticists.
I don't think the people rooting for Armageddon are doing it because they "can't have their way." ;)
I'm not interested in Armageddon, myself, but I suspect that in the current context, those who are would influence policy in a direction more similar to the direction I think we should be leaning than the others I described. Attempts to maintain the status quo have done just that: perpetuated a state of constant conflict. I think it's time to resolve some issues before gathering threats fully gather.
Adept Havelock
07-14-2006, 09:25 PM
I don't think the people rooting for Armageddon are doing it because they "can't have their way." ;)
Actually, I think that's a part of what drives it. Especially given (from those I know) their smug sense of "all yew sinnerz will get whats comin to ya". They don't get their way here, but they've been lied to and told they will after the end of the world. Thus, they look forward to it, and see it as a good thing. :shrug:
And you may not be interested in Armageddon, but I have it on good authority that Armageddon is interested in you. ;)
(Cue obligatory REM track...)
Rausch
07-15-2006, 01:39 AM
I'd rather have people who root for Armageddon influencing our foreign policy than people who root for World government at the expense of US sovereignty-
Abso-fuggen-lutely.
Amazing how wililng people are to push the UN and Geneva Convention agreements above the Constitution.
patteeu
07-15-2006, 08:37 AM
Actually, I think that's a part of what drives it. Especially given (from those I know) their smug sense of "all yew sinnerz will get whats comin to ya". They don't get their way here, but they've been lied to and told they will after the end of the world. Thus, they look forward to it, and see it as a good thing. :shrug:
Maybe so. As far as I'm aware, I don't know any of the people who seriously think armageddon is around the corner so I could be wrong about their motives.
And you may not be interested in Armageddon, but I have it on good authority that Armageddon is interested in you. ;)
(Cue obligatory REM track...)
ROFL
Amazing how wililng people are to push the UN and Geneva Convention agreements above the Constitution.
Amazing how many people seem unaware of this clause WITHIN our own constitution.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlevi.html
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Your claim is one of certainty. As there is uncertainty, your assertion of certainty is erroneous.
My claim is a claim. It's unqualified. Not qualified with language of certainty or uncertainty. It's unqualified, you can make no other statement about it without making assumptions one way or another.
It goes like this;
Assertion: God hates jAZ. . . And you cannot prove me wrong.
You might be right or wrong. If you say "I *know* God hate jAZ"... then your point would be vaild. I never said "I *know* Bush gave NK the bomb".
And for the record... I never added a "you cannot prove me wrong" qualification. I did ask Donger (or anyone) to provide *ANY* evidence to dispute my evidence. And I did point out that Donger has so far refused to provide any.
You both just pretend you are right and I'm wrong without doing a lick to support your case.
alnorth
07-15-2006, 01:44 PM
Damn, what the hell happened to jAZ?
I remember a time when he represented the left-wing opposition with thoughtful, logical arguements. I can only assume the extreme Bush hatred in the DU crowd has finally managed to affect him as well, causing him to become temporarily loopy. Hopefully jAZ returns to normal after the elections.
patteeu
07-15-2006, 02:50 PM
Amazing how many people seem unaware of this clause WITHIN our own constitution.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlevi.html
You may have missed it when it was explained on this message board that that clause doesn't change the fact that treaties remain subordinate to the US Constitution.
Lurch
07-15-2006, 09:58 PM
You may have missed it when it was explained on this message board that that clause doesn't change the fact that treaties remain subordinate to the US Constitution.
That's one a lot of folks struggle with.
vBulletin® v3.7.0 Beta 5, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.