Runaway Global Warming Possible!

Lloyd Parker wrote:



There are a large number in Iraq who want a religious government, one based
on Islam. Until recently, the party which won had a platform calling for
it. If that's what they want instead of democracy, shouldn't they be
allowed to have it?


As long as they reconfirm that view every four years in a free and fair
election?

In article ,
h (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 05 13:32:56 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Lloyd Parker) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

And if a country wants a
particular type of government, and an outside group is trying to impose
another, what does it matter the type?

Are you saying that Iraq wants a Syrian-backed and Iranian-backed
government? If so, why did they vote against it recently? They could
have put the Ba'athists back in power.

In fact, I suspect that Iraq will soon be punishing Syria for its
interference and murder.

There are a large number in Iraq who want a religious government, one
based
on Islam.

"A large number" isn't good enough, just as a "large number" of
Senators isn't sufficient to get a closure vote.

Until recently, the party which won had a platform calling for
it. If that's what they want instead of democracy, shouldn't they be
allowed to have it?

The Iraqi draft constitution, like all good constitutions, defends
minority rights. Any new government has to get buyoff from the Kurds
and other minorities. It's absurd to talk about how "Iraq" wants
anything in particular, other than self determination, and a
government not imposed by its dictatorial neighbors.
There is only an interim constitution. The permanent one is to be written
by the new parliament, one in which a religious party holds a
near-majority.

In article ,
Klaus Heitman wrote:
Lloyd Parker wrote:



There are a large number in Iraq who want a religious government, one
based
on Islam. Until recently, the party which won had a platform calling
for
it. If that's what they want instead of democracy, shouldn't they be
allowed to have it?


As long as they reconfirm that view every four years in a free and fair
election?

What if the government they want is a theocracy, where the leaders are
installed by god? Are we to tell them they must violate that by having men
vote?

In article , "Paul Blay" writes:
*follow-ups trimmed*

wrote ...
A psychotic may feel contempt towards some group of people, say (just
for example), black women and act violently based on this feeling. If
he does act, the will hold him in contempt. The sentiment is the same
in both cases, one of contempt. Yet, any claim to the effect that
since the sentiment is the same, both sides are equivalent, is
ridiculous, to put it mildly.

If the distinction is lost on you, I cannot help you.

So can you see the distinction between a violent psychotic and someone
who makes exaggerated and insulting comments about the US?

Yes, I can. And, at some level of exaggeration, I can feel nothing
but contempt toward said someone. Not quite the level of contempt I
would feel towards the violent psychotic, possibly, but contempt
nevertheless.

That's besides the point, though. The point of the exercise is, same
sentiment doesn't translate into "moral equivalence". Clear?

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

wrote ...
In article , "Paul Blay" writes:
*follow-ups trimmed*

So can you see the distinction between a violent psychotic and someone
who makes exaggerated and insulting comments about the US?

Yes, I can. And, at some level of exaggeration, I can feel nothing
but contempt toward said someone. Not quite the level of contempt I
would feel towards the violent psychotic, possibly, but contempt
nevertheless.

That's besides the point, though. The point of the exercise is, same
sentiment doesn't translate into "moral equivalence". Clear?

The point is contempt, at whatever level, is all fine and dandy for
someone insulting something you hold dear but to hold them as
less than human isn't on.

I personally would be reluctant to come to the conclusion that a
violent psychotic as less than human but there is at least some
basis for that (assuming you intended these sort of people
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy )
in that they generally lack certain mental facilities that can be
considered to be an essential part of humanity.

Lloyd Parker wrote:

In article ,
Klaus Heitman wrote:

Lloyd Parker wrote:



There are a large number in Iraq who want a religious government, one

based

on Islam. Until recently, the party which won had a platform calling

for

it. If that's what they want instead of democracy, shouldn't they be
allowed to have it?


As long as they reconfirm that view every four years in a free and fair
election?


What if the government they want is a theocracy, where the leaders are
installed by god? Are we to tell them they must violate that by having men
vote?


Thats where Bush comes in. He bombs them back into the stone age.

On Tue, 01 Mar 05 09:38:51 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Lloyd Parker) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:


Until recently, the party which won had a platform calling for
it. If that's what they want instead of democracy, shouldn't they be
allowed to have it?

The Iraqi draft constitution, like all good constitutions, defends
minority rights. Any new government has to get buyoff from the Kurds
and other minorities. It's absurd to talk about how "Iraq" wants
anything in particular, other than self determination, and a
government not imposed by its dictatorial neighbors.
There is only an interim constitution. The permanent one is to be written
by the new parliament, one in which a religious party holds a
near-majority.

Yes, and the new constitution will not pass without buyoff from the
Kurds and the other minorities.

"Coby Beck" wrote:

:
:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
: (Eric Swanson) wrote:
:
: on't forget the old saying; "One man's terrorist is another man's
: freedom
: :fighter".
:
: I don't. I simply label it as the bull**** sophistry that it is; a
: 'catch phrase' used by those who favour terrorists to justify their
: acts.
:
:Wasn't that Ronald Reagan's response to complaints about terrorism of the
:Contras against the Nicaraguan people?

No. It wasn't.

: A terrorist is a terrorist. It doesn't matter whose he is. It is the
: nature of the acts that is the determinant, not some specious form of
: moral relativity.
:
:I agree with this, though defining terrorism is actually very difficult,
:more so if you are in the business of violence and want to avoid having your
:definition apply to your own actions.

Not particularly, no.

:Can Fred, or anyone, provide a definition of terrorism that includes a
:suicide attack on an army recruitment center killing 10's of volunteers but
:does not include bombing into rubble 75% of a city of 300 thousand?

No, nor would I particularly want to. Presumably an Army recruitment
center would be a military target. See my definition above.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Rand Simberg wrote:
Or do you really believe that OJ didn't murder his wife and her
friend?

This thread is certainly hitting all the bases. Let's see,
we've already run through the war on terror, Bush, Clinton,
now we're on to OJ. Might as well just go for the whole
shebang:

(cue the family guy)

Microsoft sucks
Apple sucks
Jesus sucks
Krypton sucks
The Yankees suck
The Red Sox suck
C++ sucks
Java sucks
Marvel sucks
DC comics sucks


Have I left anything out?

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 10:05:06 -0600, in a place far, far away,
"Christopher M. Jones" made the
phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Rand Simberg wrote:
Or do you really believe that OJ didn't murder his wife and her
friend?

This thread is certainly hitting all the bases. Let's see,
we've already run through the war on terror, Bush, Clinton,
now we're on to OJ. Might as well just go for the whole
shebang:

Hey, why not. It's up to well over a thousand posts now.