More UN corruption

[Dante]

"Oh, so you're saying that there is nothing inherantly negative about losing? "

I just dont want YOU to start saying losing is bad.  Endorsing a loser is not inherently bad.  You said that Bush endorsing a loser was "illogical" and I fail to see why it is such.  What rational basis do you have for such a principled claim?

Will you stop questioning me?! Every time I post I get "prove you're not moral, prove you're not moral, prove you're not moral" and I'm sick of it! Quit being a broken record. Endorsing a loser is bad because losing is not profitable! It means loss of money! Loss of life! Loss of business! Loss, loss, loss!

"Weapons used against self = death. Death death death death death."

And?  Uh...ok.  But selling weapons to someone does not equivocate to "weapons used against self". TO state as such comits a fallacy.

Sell someone weapons, there is always a chance that they can then be used against one's self. Always.

"Following your logic, when the weapons sold to the nazis by Bush's grandfather were actually used against American troops, it was actually a good thing! Care to rephrase?"

#1.  Prove that weapons sold to the nazis by Bush's grandfather killed American Soldiers

#2.  Prove that (assuming it is true, which it is most likely not) it is a bad thing

1: Can you prove that they didn't?

2: Are you questioning the 'fact' that the deaths of American soldiers is somehow a bad thing? What kind of patriot are you?

"Hypocracy is anathema to me. It is breaking one's own rules, be they logical rules, moral rules, rules of law, rules of self, it doesn't matter what rules they are, they are being broken by those who made them. This is not only incredibly annoying, but also stupid, egotistical, and counter-productive."

Now this is a rediculous statement.  Hypocrisy breaks YOUR OWN PERSONAL RULES but not necessarily the rules of someoone else.

Q:  If the personal rules for Jim permit Hypocrisy, what logical right do YOU have to say its bad?  (and you did use the word bad)

A:  You have no logical right.

If Jim's moral rules permit hypocracy then that's fine. Logically, however, he is in error.

[GUNWOUNDS]

*Feels balance restored within the force*

Aaah .. good to see the forums back to how they use to be.  Refreshing.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Dante is wrong on all points.

Will you stop questioning me?! Every time I post I get "prove you're not moral, prove you're not moral, prove you're not moral" and I'm sick of it! Quit being a broken record. Endorsing a loser is bad because losing is not profitable! It means loss of money! Loss of life! Loss of business! Loss, loss, loss!

People still buy Jackets, cards, posters, etc, etc with losing teams on them.... Cleveland Browns Fans are hardcore fans.... and yes the companies who endorse these losing teams and make the

[Dante]

Dante is wrong on all points.

That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it.

...It's not like I would want it...

"People still buy Jackets, cards, posters, etc, etc with losing teams on them.... Cleveland Browns Fans are hardcore fans.... and yes the companies who endorse these losing teams and make the  various items make mega large profits. .. So your logic fails."

The same cannot be said for losers in a war, Gunwounds. You should know that.

"False... if i sell a gun to someone who lives in Russia and he never leaves the country... and i am in America... he can never shoot me.  The laws of Physics says so.  Once again your logic fails."

What exactly is stopping him from leaving the country?

"Some Americans are bad people worthy of dying.. there exists american molesters, rapists, murders, theifs, etc, etc, .... and many soldiers come from the worst parts of society because they cannot get a job elsewhere.  In this case the death of an american soldier would be a good thing.  Once again your logic fails miserably."

I see. So you are saying the deaths of those brave American soldiers fighting for their country is a good thing. How very reassuring...

"Whats wrong with annoying someone? Maybe it will cause them to succumb to your wishes... thats a good thing."

Hardly. Annoying people just makes them stick to their guns more. This argument should be proof enough of that.

"Whats wrong with being stupid?  Ignorance is bliss."

And you would know...

"Whats wrong with being egotistical?  ITs better than having low self esteem... and many employers like people who have a sense of "invincibility about them"  so it could help you move up in the workplace."

Or maybe everyone would just think you were bigheaded and you get fired.

"Whats wrong with being counter productive?  If you are a slave working for an evil corporation... then being counter productive is a good thing."

*Sigh* The very meaning of 'counter productive' is that it is negative. In the situation you described, any actions the slave makes against the company would be productive from his point of view. I note that now emprworm is back you seem to be copying his arguments. Having trouble with our own, are we?

"You just said earlier that the type of rules didnt matter to you. Make up your mind. And since you are making moral judgements rather than logical ones... your interpretation of him being "Logically in Error"  is totally your "Opinion" based on your moral beliefs."

I have no moral beliefs, and I'm not making moral judgements. Get with the program.

And I didn't say they don't matter, I said they have no justification. If Jim wants to make hypocracy morally right, fine, he can. No qualms there whatsoever. He can base a religion on it for all I care. But if he tries to prove that hypocracy is logically a 'good' thing, then we have a problem.

[GUNWOUNDS]

I note that now emprworm is back you seem to be copying his arguments. Having trouble with our own, are we?

Not copying at all.. just expanding where he left off... such as the soldiers dying being a good thing... or why endorsing a losing team would be a good thing... he did not expand and say the "why's"

[thomas]

[GUNWOUNDS]

for those who are ignorant to the japanese camps, they were made out of paranoia and not hatred and they were treated well and again it was paranoia not hatred.

Oh and Japan Attacked the US, oh and also sent balloon bombs at us(99% failed, I think only 4 casualties were caused by the thousands launched)

i am sure paranoia and hatred mix quite easily... like sugar in hot coffee.

[GUNWOUNDS]

I see. So you are saying the deaths of those brave American soldiers fighting for their country is a good thing. How very reassuring...

Just to clear something up... i am not saying being a soldier is bad in and of itself... i am saying if the particular soldier happened to be a rapist or child pornographer, etc,etc ...then it could be an acceptable death.

[thomas]

i am sure paranoia and hatred mix quite easily... like sugar in hot coffee.

not to the extent that the concentration camps were built

[GUNWOUNDS]

There is always a chance ...<snip>.... it causes death death death

[Anathema]

[Dante]

Not copying at all.. just expanding where he left off... such as the soldiers dying being a good thing... or why endorsing a losing team would be a good thing... he did not expand and say the "why's"  .. so i stepped up and did so.  Mainly to simplify for you to understand.

And there was me thinking you were just trying to annoy me.

And i see that all of your responses are shrouded in ambiguity and are wishy washy or just plain ad hominem.  Having trouble taking direct hits i see?  Hurry patch up the holes before you sink.  *Glug* *Glug* *Gurggle*

That

[Dunenewt]

Dante's right, self-preservation has nothing to do with Hedonism.  In Hedonism pleasure = good, and pain = evil, no relation to the Muller Rice advert.

[emprworm]

I'm going to reverberate Gunwounds here.  I want to stick purpleguy to his first post.  Lets re-hash a bit while I provide fresh response.

Endorsing a loser is bad because losing is not profitable! It means loss of money! Loss of life! Loss of business! Loss, loss, loss!

false, false, false!  Where do you get this bad logic from?  There is a ton of profit to be made!  Last year, when the Canuks lost in the playoffs, the team made millions even AFTER the loss!  There is a POTENTIAL to lose money endorsing a loser, just like there is the POTENTIAL to lose money endorsing a winner.  The winner of the last summer Olympics had numerous endorsements....then she was found to be taking drugs, and suddenly the winner became the LOSER.  Once again, your logic makes no sense.  As bush sr would say:  baaaad logic.  baaaaaad

Sell someone weapons, there is always a chance that they can then be used against one's self. Always.

ROFL!  You know NOTHING about logic and capitalism.  If I sell a guy a car, there is always a chance he could run me over.  If I sell a guy a computer, there is a chance he could use it to hack me.  If I sell a guy a hamburger, there is a chance he could use it to sue me.  If I sell a guy a rope, there is a chance he could use it to hang me. And if you STILL don't get it yet....If I sell a guy erotic paraphanilia there is a chance he could use it to rape me. 

Using your (bad) logic, I cant sell ANYONE ANYTHING

Get it?  Good.

"2: Are you questioning the 'fact' that the deaths of American soldiers is somehow a bad thing? What kind of patriot are you?

Read your history.  You are ignorant of it.  The use of weaponry against a civilization is one of the greatest causual forces advancing that civilization in science and technology.  I gave you an example of the crossbow.  It forced the advancement of armor and defense.  The microwave oven you use every day is a direct result of weapons research.  Having a weapon used against you is one way that a society strengthens itself.  This world, and all its technology is founded on a world history of WAR, the worst of them occuring during the secular period of the last 100 years (also, of which, contains the most rapid technological advancements).  It is sometimes the case, BUT NOT ALWAYS that the use of weaponry against you is a bad thing.  Seeing a new offense inspires a better defense, and a better counter offense.  Your logic (once again) makes...no...sense.

And now, I'm going to reveal the real truth of the matter.  The truth that we all know, but that you will deny.  Gunwounds knows this truth.  I know this truth.  Many others in here know this truth.  YOU know this truth.  But will you admit it?  That is left to be seen.  And what is this truth I speak of?  brace yourself:

You hate bush.  You hate him with intense emotion, not due to any logical conclusion, but due to firey passion.  This passionate disdain you have against Bush, full of emotion, full of anger, full of conviction.  You tell yourself "I am an amoral person", like Spock, you want to rationally deny that you could possible have so much emotional fury against someone unless there is a truy unbiased logical objective reason for it.  As a homosexual, and one who embraces liberal views, you are revolted by the values of conservatives, judging them as immoral liars, hypocrites, scoundrels, vile intolerant bigots.  You hate it when they say you are doing something that is "sinful."  How dare they say you are wrong!  Who are they to tell you what is good and what is bad! You have intense feelings raging against them.  But wait!  You are a logical person.  You do not give in to emotion.  You do not call anything "right" or "wrong"  After all, you are amoral.  So you search...you search...you search for some kind of dispassionate objective logical reason why you have such rage against bush and conservatism.  So you fool yourself with this "amoral" mask you put on.  Yet we can all see that it is shallow.  We can see that beneath the stillness of the quiet water, a swirling mass of fierce pirhanna swarm beneath. 

Your "logic" against Bush is completely rediculous.  Just tell us the truth:  you hate the man because he has beliefs that rouse you.  You cannot stand his religiosity, and you loathe with intense emotion the cause of conservatism because it strikes against the very core of who you are.  THEY are the hypocrites.  THEY are the ones who are wrong.  Am I right?

  But please cut with the "logical" reasons why Bush is so bad.

[Dunenewt]

Let me quote Dante to help you with those questions:

false, false, false!  Where do you get this bad logic from?  There is a ton of profit to be made!  Last year, when the Canuks lost in the playoffs, the team made millions even AFTER the loss!  There is a POTENTIAL to lose money endorsing a loser, just like there is the POTENTIAL to lose money endorsing a winner.  The winner of the last summer Olympics had numerous endorsements....then she was found to be taking drugs, and suddenly the winner became the LOSER.  Once again, your logic makes no sense.  As bush sr would say:  baaaad logic.  baaaaaad

The same cannot be said for losers in a war, Gunwounds. You should know that.

ROFL! You know NOTHING about logic and capitalism. If I sell a guy a car, there is always a chance he could run me over. If I sell a guy a computer, there is a chance he could use it to hack me. If I sell a guy a hamburger, there is a chance he could use it to sue me. If I sell a guy a rope, there is a chance he could use it to hang me. And if you STILL don't get it yet....If I sell a guy erotic paraphanilia there is a chance he could use it to rape me.Using your (bad) logic, I cant sell ANYONE ANYTHING

Get it? Good.

What are guns but weapons of death? They are designed to bring death, they have no other purpose

[GUNWOUNDS]

1.)

[leo]

Woohoo I just read that the US investigation found out that Saddam paid to the families of the suicide bombers In Israel with the money he received from the UN.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Woohoo I just read that the US investigation found out that Saddam paid to the families of the suicide bombers In Israel with the money he received from the UN.

Also i heard that many UN members and Koffie's Son received kickbacks from Saddam's oil funds from the "Oil for Food" Program.. which is why France, Russia, and most UN leaders didnt want the USA to invade Iraq... Saddam was basically their money spigot. To the tune of billions...what a joke.

And get this.. the USA has identified Syria as funding terrorists as well... and the UN has Syria on the Security Council.... the Security Council!!

The UN has lost all moral authority in international matters and now it seems countries will be able to do unilateral events whenever they choose.

[leo]

Syria and Iran are probably the biggest supporters of the terror groups, especially in Lebanon (Hezbollah) and the Lebanese government is not doing anything against it. Syria and Iran are providing all the support, including money and weapons, that needed. Hezbollah is shooting missiles on Israeli cities, I would like to see how France will react if they had missiles on Paris. BTW, I

[emprworm]

with all the wonders of the UN, I'm sure we'll see Syrria chairing the Human Rights commission soon.  Right there alongside Fidel Castro and Lybia's Momar Kadafi.  The UN is run by Islamafacists.  It has zero credibility in world affairs.  what a pathetic organization.

[Dunenewt]

Nuclear missiles could be used to destroy incoming asteroids that might threaten a city.

Someone's watched too many films...

[Anathema]

2.)Guns are not only designed to bring death.

[Dante]

Thank you, Dunenewt.

Read your history.  You are ignorant of it.  The use of weaponry against a civilization is one of the greatest causual forces advancing that civilization in science and technology.  I gave you an example of the crossbow.  It forced the advancement of armor and defense.  The microwave oven you use every day is a direct result of weapons research.  Having a weapon used against you is one way that a society strengthens itself.  This world, and all its technology is founded on a world history of WAR, the worst of them occuring during the secular period of the last 100 years (also, of which, contains the most rapid technological advancements).  It is sometimes the case, BUT NOT ALWAYS that the use of weaponry against you is a bad thing.  Seeing a new offense inspires a better defense, and a better counter offense.  Your logic (once again) makes...no...sense.

Only to you, child, only to you. And I cannot expect you to understand everything. You are, after all, only yourself.

Development of technology can happen without the presence of war, or with it. Had the microwave not been developed because of war, it would have been developed for some other reason.

You've done it again, child, you are once again confusing emotions with morals. It is perfectly possible for one to have emotions without morals, and vice versa. They are not required for each other. I've never claimed to be Spock, but you seem to think I have. Still, let's take this bit by bit...

I'm going to reverberate Gunwounds here.

Well there's a surprise...

I want to stick purpleguy to his first post.  Lets re-hash a bit while I provide fresh response.

Conclusion: Yes, 'Dante' is definately too hard to spell. Or maybe come to think of it, Ariel Sharon recently couldn't bring himself to atually say 'Arafat' recently. Maybe it's a similar problem...

And now, I'm going to reveal the real truth of the matter.

That'll be a first...

The truth that we all know, but that you will deny.

We'll see, we'll see.

Gunwounds knows this truth.  I know this truth.

No, you only think you know it.

Many others in here know this truth.

Would you care to point them out?

YOU know this truth. But will you admit it? That is left to be seen.

Indeed.

And what is this truth I speak of?  brace yourself:

*Puts on 'anti-idiocy' goggles.*

You hate bush.

Yup. No arguments there.

You hate him with intense emotion,

Yep, can't argue with that.

not due to any logical conclusion, but due to firey passion.

Bit of both, actually.

This passionate disdain you have against Bush, full of emotion, full of anger, full of conviction.  You tell yourself "I am an amoral person", like Spock, you want to rationally deny that you could possible have so much emotional fury against someone unless there is a truy unbiased logical objective reason for it.

Like I said, remember that emotions are not the same as morals. Spock had no emotions, but he definately had morals. I have no, or few, morals; but plenty of emotion.

As a homosexual, and one who embraces liberal views, you are revolted by the values of conservatives, judging them as immoral liars, hypocrites, scoundrels, vile intolerant bigots.

No, just you. Seriously, where did I say that? Perhaps you'd care to quote me?

You hate it when they say you are doing something that is "sinful."  How dare they say you are wrong!  Who are they to tell you what is good and what is bad!

Quite. Especially since I know more about good and bad than they do.

You have intense feelings raging against them.

Only some of them.

But wait!  You are a logical person.  You do not give in to emotion.

Again I point out, logic is not incompatible with emotion.

You do not call anything "right" or "wrong"

Not strictly true. I do use the words 'right' and 'wrong,' just not in an objective moral sense.

After all, you are amoral.

Glad you finally admit it.

So you search...you search...you search for some kind of dispassionate objective logical reason why you have such rage against bush and conservatism.  So you fool yourself with this "amoral" mask you put on.

You're telling stories. How sweet. It's just like Gunwounds when he makes up fantasies about my mental health.

Yet we can all see that it is shallow.  We can see that beneath the stillness of the quiet water, a swirling mass of fierce pirhanna swarm beneath.

'All?' Who are these 'all'? And I've never denied having emotion. Yes, I'm emotional. I truly do loathe Bush. Whether I can or cannot justify it logically is immaterial in this case (although I can), I do loathe the man. This does not prove my arguments against the presence of an objective morality invalid.

Your "logic" against Bush is completely rediculous.

Almost as ridiculous as your supposed morality.

Just tell us the truth:  you hate the man because he has beliefs that rouse you.  You cannot stand his religiosity, and you loathe with intense emotion the cause of conservatism because it strikes against the very core of who you are.  THEY are the hypocrites.  THEY are the ones who are wrong.  Am I right?

No. Are you ever?

I do not care what beliefs Bush holds, he is welcome to hold them. I try very hard not to judge anyone on their beliefs, but by the way they express and act on these beliefs. And he acts on these beliefs in ways that will cause death, misery, pain, and suffering to people that have done nothing to him. Now pay attention to the next few sentances, they're important.

When I am arguing usually, I do not refer to these reasons to dislike Bush. Why? Because there is no logical justification for it. I cannot logically justify my emotions, nobody can. And that, my deluded friend, is why my emotions do not often enter my arguments. I use logic because I can justify it; this does not mean that I am devoid of emotion. Besides, I do not need emotion to argue against Bush, there are plenty of logical reasons!

To clarify: I dislike Bush for many reasons, both logical and emotional. I only use the logical ones in argument, because they are the only ones I will justify. This does not mean there are no emotional reasons. You are not revealing some great truth when you say I hate him.

Incidentally, when are you going  to recognise that politically at least, I'm still more conservative than you?

But please cut with the "logical" reasons why Bush is so bad.

Pff, I think not.

1.)  You cannot enjoy pleasure if you are dead... therefore self preservation and self interests are inherent in the definition of hedonism.  Case Closed.

And if causing pleasure to others is more important than causing pleasure for oneself? Or maybe causing pleasure for two people is better than causing pleasure for one? Self preservation and self interest are not inherent to hedonism because hedonism itself is not specific. It needs backup beliefs like consequentialism or utilitarianism.

2.)Guns are not only designed to bring death.  They are for marksmanship as well.  Many Marksmanship tournaments have thousands of recreational gun users come and try out their skill.

I don't believe it. Someone who is actually arguing that guns are not just for killing... this is ridiculous. Guns are weapons, surely you aren't disputing that? And weapons, more or less by design, kill things.

Besides, even sports guns are capable of killing people. Still not safe...

3.)  Same goes for bow and arrow... when i went to camp as a little boy there was an activity called "archery"  where we would go and shoot arrows at targets and i had immense fun.  Basically in the case of archery and gun marksmanship there are two people seeing how close they can get a certain projectile to a specified point.  Send me a PM if you need further clarification.  I will be happy to make an illustration for you.

The fact that you need to communicate in pictures is only further evidence that you shouldn't be trusted with a gun.

Same does indeed go for bow and arrow. But crossbows and longbows are not so easily concealed as guns, and as such they are less dangerous. Even so, they are weapons, and weapons do indeed kill.

I predict your response  will go into detail about larger scale weapons and their lack of a recreational use.  However, they could be used for demolition... such as destroying a bridge or abandonned facility.... the same way dynamite is used in mining.

So sell it to construction companies rather than nations. Duh.

Also large bombs can actually put out a massive fire by sucking out all of the oxygen in a given area.  They were used to put out some oil field fires back in the first gulf war.

Replacement technolgy can be found.

Nuclear missiles could be used to destroy incoming asteroids that might threaten a city.

And then sprinkle nuclear particles all over the Earth instead of on just one city. I think not.

Once again i have destroyed your "absolute logic".

Er, heh heh, no, you haven't; and from my point of view at least you never have. Besides, since when have I referred to my arguments as 'absolute logic?'

Weapons are not only for death... they have several real world applications and can serve many purposes such as protecting life.

When weapons stop killing, they stop being weapons.

Nice try... sorry i had to hose ya.

Oh please...

*note - dunenewt if you are gonna back someone up... make sure they know what they are talking about first.

I might say the same to you.

with all the wonders of the UN, I'm sure we'll see Syrria chairing the Human Rights commission soon. Right there alongside Fidel Castro and Lybia's Momar Kadafi. The UN is run by Islamafacists. It has zero credibility in world affairs. what a pathetic organization.

Only according to your biased media, child.

[ordos45]

*We're friends with Kadafi now.  We've lifted the sanctions. 

*The Lebanese Government is a bigger joke of a puppet government than the Governing Council in Iraq.

*You mean Canada's biased media Dust Scout, he's in Canada now. ;)  (Unless you count Foxnews.com and Matt Drudge with his remarkable 30% accuracy rating.)

*If Islamafascists ran the UN, it would be in a predominantly Muslim nation and the USA would've been ejected from the body.

[Dante]

Alright, residual US media and Fox.