Since the OP writer has deleted/changed the OP and other substantial posts, closed.

:naughty:

Oh, I remember now something about him shilling for big tobacco. That was what I objected to most about him and I came down strong on it. What I meant about "decency" was that today the left should occupy that space openly abandoned by the right and previously occupied (even if only in appearance) by those like Scruton.

If he's "rabid", we've run out of adjectives to describe the alt-right, Trump and so on. I didn't like the guy but he was hardly more than a typical reactionary conservative my book. Anyway, maybe you should link to the discussion, so we don't have to repeat it again here.

I don't know about all this. But bugger hereditary privilege anyway.

So it was racist? Ok. — frank

That was a bit too easy. According to my research, there's a good chance it wasn't deliberately racist. You'd have to believe in intentional career suicide over it being a stupid mistake. But it's a Roseanne-type issue, we'll probably never know.

We need to get you your own YouTube channel, mate. :naughty: :party:

What I hear you saying is that a distorted version of events was presented by this CBS segment. The issue of racism wasn't there originally. It was fabricated and retrojected for the purpose of sensational news. — frank

I can't say for sure what was and wasn't there, but my speculative narrative, if I could be bothered with one, would be as valid as the one in the segment or fishfry's. So, I'd put it that there's a mix of something important (racism) and something trivial (M and H splitting off) and the way the media deals with this type of thing trivializes the important and elevates the trivial.

:up: :up:

Read one of his books once. He was good on Kant. Not so much on contemporary philosophy. And irritating politically. On his death, however, seeing as new conservatism has embraced vulgarity and ugliness and is currently pissing all over decency and, dare I say it, "traditional values", there is reason for some reflection among the left at the loss of those like him.

Baden is saying the black lady's testimony is unreliable. It didn't sound unreliable, but ok. — frank

Not in all respects. There was some solid stuff in there. The Daily Mail is for example a horribly nasty right-wing rag, Boris Johnson is racist, black people aren't well-integrated into the British establishment, and the stuff about class she briefly touched on is also cogent. But she's creating a narrative about the reasons for M and H's recent decision based on speculation along a certain angle for consumption by a certain market. And the hosts take this, exaggerate it, and run with it in a somewhat sensationalised way, which she's happy to accommodate. Similarly @fishfry has his own speculative narrative built up from his interpretation of the facts (and for some reason is even more inordinately sure of himself). So, genuine concern over a genuine issue or poking the market for profit? Mixed bag at best.

As for British v American racism, the history differs, but I don't see any clear division there. The majority of the myriad forms of expression of this ugliness span both sides of the Atlantic imo. Though if someone has a bit more meat to put on the opposing argument, I'll bite.

@ArguingWAristotleTiff Something that gets lost in all this argument of whether Soleimani was a bad enough guy to deserve to die is that Trump executed nine people in that attack including an Iraqi official. It wasn't just Soleimani. Even a half-arsed ethical argument should attempt to question the justification for killing the others too. But you won't find one MSM outlet doing that. Nor have we been talking about it here. Why? They were presumably real waking talking people with lives and families too before Trump blew them into little pieces. And if there was no imminent threat (which now seems the case) that was murder, right?

Yes, the MSM mood was, from the start, predominantly celebratory re the relationship. In a stupid patronising way, but, whatever, they were making money. Which seems to be the primary motivation for this piece too. The second that M and H announced the step back, there was an editor somewhere saying to himself "Can we get a race angle on this?" and another "Can we do a Meghan-the-man-eater thing here?" and another "How about the spoiled-ungrateful-brat take?" Whatever sells. There are enough factoids out there to piece together a narrative convincing enough for some media target market to swallow it. Which is not to say there's not an element of truth in any of the stories, just that they're consumer products parasitising a hapless couple who are themselves parasitising the British taxpayer and sensibly (in my view) want a break from the whole sick shitshow.

I'm sure Teller has plenty of value to offer the site. — Baden

After seeing your latest OP on Gwyneth Paltrow, @Teller, (now deleted for low quality), I am wavering. OPs are not supposed to be a couple of lines on something that just jumped into your head. Try this: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7110/how-to-write-an-op and please make a little more effort.

@Teller is absolutely welcome, but un's comment was apt. Not a big deal, I'm sure @Teller has plenty of value to offer the site.

(And by the way, many of the worst characteristics of politicians, such as being dishonest, he does display while lacking their best ones, such as knowledge of how to run a country.)

I think the problem people have with Trump is the way he behaves, period. Not behaving like a politician sounds good, superficially, seeing as people generally don't like or trust politicians. But behaving like a vulgar ignorant sexist scumbag can't be excused because it's not the behavior of a politician. Just like any piece of human garbage doesn't get a pass for not being something.

This discussion is about the US vs Iran; maybe you can repost your question in the dump Trump thread.

Great art is largely unappreciated by the masses and bears shit in woods (until we cut all the trees down to make Danielle Steele paperbacks). C'est la vie. Get on with it and consider it a privilege to be ignored. Less distractions and more time to write.

Don't you have anything better to discuss? — unenlightened

:lol:

Couldn't be happier that Trump has decided to "stand with" the Iranian people rather than kill them in large numbers. Let's hope it stays that way.

Fair enough.

Your analogy is very wide of the mark. A better one would be your boss shoots your wife and you then shoot someone who calls at your door in the mistaken belief they are your boss.

Imagine if they had nuclear weapons. — Punshhh

Yes, Trump has achieved two things for them. 1) Given them an excuse to restart their nuclear program and 2) Shown that he's not willing to go to war over it. The winner here is the developing Russia/China axis with Iran and North Korea as untouchable assets harassing and undermining US interests.

The development of full deterrent-level nuclear weapons in North Korea and Iran? Until they get them apparently. :grin:

Whatever, I'm just happy no-one is dead in a horrible war today. Let's all drink champagne and sing Kumbaya until Kim nukes LA.

Right on. This guy's moves make Baldrick look like a n00b.

I also like his cunning plan of fooling Kim Jong-Un into thinking America didn't want North Korea to have nuclear weapons when all along he planned on them becoming an unassailable nuclear power.

No, he planned it all from the start. He knew Iran would fire dozens of missiles at an American base in retaliation for his attack and these missiles would happen to cause no casualties, so he would be able to avoid starting a massive horrific war. He's clearly a genius.

I reckon I'll just walk across this busy road blindfolded and when I don't get hit by a car that'll prove what a good idea it was.

The veneration of dumb luck? Apt.

In fairness, you take a lot of flak on Trump from just about every angle and manage to stay remarkably good-natured about it, which is admirable. And with 15 small businesses, I imagine you have headaches enough on your plate.

At the moment on Iran, I'm at the thank-fuck-nobody-else-had-to-die stage. Hope it stays like that for the forseeable.

The likelihood is he's guilty of execution-worthy human rights abuses, yes.

Give me an ideologically neutral definition of "terrorist" that you're prepared to test American leaders against and then let's do that.

Ok, he's not a terrorist then.



I sympathize with him because I compared him to scumbags like Trump and Bush? Are you serious?

If anyone wants to argue about war crimes in the context of America vs Iran, I'll give you ten American atrocities for every one Iranian. Despite that, I'd take America over Iran as a better overall country under most metrics. It's just that only a complete fool would claim the US is morally superior in terms of its military activities.

The American military has tortured and sponsored torture and the murder of innocent civilians in Iraq and elsewhere. You think because they don't do it to "their own people" that makes them morally superior?

I'm waiting for the moral argument that justifies killing Soleimani rather than Bush or Trump that goes beyond they're American and he's not. I don't think you have one. Prove me wrong.

Are noted terrorists "assisnated" or are they killed? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

He helped the US fight the Taliban. He also fought ISIS, Al-Nusrah, and Al-Qaeda in Syria. He was a high-ranking military official of a sovereign nation. He was doing his job the same way your generals do. That includes supporting insurgent groups, something the US has been doing all around the world for the past couple of generations. That doesn't make him a good guy, but if you want to designate him a terrorist, you'll have to apply that to Reagan, Bush, Obama, and Trump, the latter who killed him in what much of the world outside your bubble considers an act of terrorism (illegal under international law in the absence of evidence of an imminent threat). So again you're failing the basic test of even attempting to get beyond your bias here. First step, give me an ideologically neutral definition of 'terrorist' and accept the consequences of who falls under that umbrella.

I'm not a pacifist; sometimes the use of military force is justified. The main point I'm making above is that a moral argument would require looking at the full context in a neutral way. I don't expect that here. Strategically, things are simpler, your move should strengthen you and weaken the enemy (at least relatively). And I don't think killing Soleimani achieved that for the Americans. Though the damage on either side has thankfully been limited.

If someone assassinated Bush Jr for his part in the Iraq war, would you consider that justice? What about stormin' Norman? Does he deserve to die? And can't we do away with Trump for his betrayal of the Kurds? Or is your rule that only American lives matter (because you can be sure that most Iranians have exactly the same view only in the inverse). For me as a neutral military leaders are in the same broad category⁠—people whose job is to kill in the interests of their country. Is there some reason I should think differently? You have to take a step back from your position on one side or the other to make a convincing moral argument. Otherwise, we're just talking about strategy, which is fine, but let's make that explicit.

On your first day in McDonald's, you learn to flip burgers or you're out. That principle of employee competence might be worth applying to the most important job in the world. On the rest, I defer to 180 except to add the context of America dumping the Iran deal and imposing sanctions (more today). Trace that line. The Iranians are no innocents but there are reasons for their behaviour which could be dealt with in ways that don't put your own people at such extreme risk.