I don't know what you're talking about there, Baden. But I'm more than happy to exit the conversation. Peace out.

You know what I'm talking about, the chip on your shoulder about us Europeans not loving the US enough for all it's done for us.

Well.. they don't love us enough. But that wasn't what I've been trying to get across to you and Sapientia.

Why do you think Obama is struggling to get the US into the TPP before he leaves office? It's because Hilary Clinton had to abandon her typical moderate views in order to get the nomination. The discussion in the US now is not liberal vs conservative. Its extremist vs moderate. And there are similarities between hard left and hard right concerns and proposed solutions. Where the two extreme sides are coming together amounts to a collection of isolationist attitudes.

I was trying to explain to you that all the mental masturbation you guys are doing about the evil American Empire and some shit about blame is going to be obsolete pretty soon. The US isn't going to be intervening in the Middle East (especially toward the end of this century when the petroleum will be gone). It won't be trying to help anybody including you.

Meanwhile you folks sit there apparently not even comprehending what the word "defense" means (that appears to be true of Benkie anyway.)

Britain and France have nuclear weapons, Mongrel. Europe is not helpless. The only potential major threat is Russia, which is extremely unlikely to risk a nuclear war by invading Western Europe. So, we don't need the US as badly as you seem to suggest. Also, it's in America's strategic interest to keep NATO going as a bulwark against Russia, which keeps Eastern Europe protected. The US won't be going anywhere in the forseeable future.

Britain and France have nuclear weapons, Mongrel. Europe is not helpless. The only potential major threat is Russia, which is extremely unlikely to risk a nuclear war by invading Western Europe. So, we don't need the US as badly as you seem to suggest. Also, it's in America's strategic interest to keep NATO going as a bulwark against Russia, which keeps Eastern Europe safe. So, they won't be going anywhere in the forseeable future. — Baden

Thanks for the history lesson Baden. LOL.

Happy to help those in need. But note that it's not really a history lesson seeing as it's about the present. Call it a lesson in common sense, and significantly less patronizing than this:

Meanwhile you folks sit there apparently not even comprehending what the word "defense" means (that appears to be true of Benkie anyway.) — Mongrel

For the most part, yes. — Sapientia

Now I know why it seems I have been talking to a brick wall. This disclosure only confirms my suspicions that talking with you has been a waste of time.

Intention alone is woefully insufficient — Sapientia

Not for the law it's not.

are ill-considered and offensive — Sapientia

"Offensive" my left foot. To hell with your thin skin. You have written post after post implying that inaction is the only defensible course of action available to us, and don't pretend that you haven't.

Military intervention isn't the only possible course of action — Sapientia

Of course not. But our other options are 1) continuing to send aid and 2) attempting to seek a diplomatic solution. Both of these are no longer feasible. Aid workers are now being murdered along with the civilians they are trying to help. And Assad and ISIS are not open to negotiations. They are both long past the point of being engaged with in friendly discourse. They need to be brought to justice.

Self-defense is another matter, and was obviously not the target of my criticism. But yes, I believe that there are situations where self-defense is necessary, and in which actions taken in self-defense are justified (although there are exceptions). — Sapientia

Congratulations. You've just understood the basic principle of just war theory as developed in the West during the last couple millennia. This is precisely the basis on which we (the West and her allies) would seek to aid our Syrian and Iraqi brothers and sisters by means of military force.

Baden. A feature of the present is that Trump declared that he has no problem with Russia's recent acquisitions. A few years back that would have been next door to treason. Now... the reaction was... "Hmm."

He has repeatedly claimed that it's in the interest of the US to have a close relationship with Russia.

And you're talking about the security of Eastern Europe?

Blank stare.

I note that I've had the same experience Throngil had (and our views aren't identical). You and I aren't communicating.

And... I'm... officially done trying to explain anything to a European.

I'm well aware of Trump kissing Putin's backside. But he's not going to win. And nothing he says matters much anyway because he has no underlying principles. So, even if he did win (which he won't) he would probably flip flop on that like everything else as soon as someone smart told him what a dumb idea it was.

And... I'm... officially done trying to explain anything to a European. — Mongrel

You weren't trying to explain stuff, you were trying to vent. There's a difference.

Suppose the roles were reversed in 1941. The US is struggling. It could use help. Would the British government act to help the US? Yes. It would see what it could do to help the US cease to exist. We can guess that by its actions just a few decades earlier when it supplied the Confederacy during the American Civil War. It did that for one reason: to undermine the US and fragment North America.

But the US government says, "No, let's risk life and limb to bring food to Britain." So obviously this quest we've been on to see just how big a bunch of chumps we can be has been going on for a while now.

This is isolationist talk. One of the reasons I think it's going to grow is that to some extent... it's based on the truth. — Mongrel

This seems to have digressed too far from my original point. I don't feel obliged to defend the past actions of the British government or any hypothical along those lines unless it is somehow relevant to my position in this discussion.

I was riffing on the emotion behind the emergence of American isolationism. The last line of the post was meant to explain that. The idea is that the US needs to back down from any pretense of leading the world... because... leading it where? There are no allies out there. It's just people who are really good at taking advantage of a bunch of idiots and the US has signed up for that over and over. It's time to stop. Does it have legs? From where I'm standing.. it does.

Don't like my poetic style? Who cares?

I guess the point I was trying to make to you was this: Life is a bloody mess sometimes. Sometimes you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs. The only way to really avoid that is to become a pacifist. But in that state, we might indict you for a different kind of crime... that you stood by and did nothing. Sometimes it's not a choice between perfection and a messy solution. It's a choice between two bloody messes.

You can deny all of that obviously. It's just the perspective of one of your earthly cohorts.

Not for the law it's not. — Thorongil

The law is a red herring, since this is about ethics.

"Offensive" my left foot. To hell with your thin skin. You have written post after post implying that inaction is the only defensible course of action available to us, and don't pretend that you haven't. — Thorongil

Are you actually blaming me for your own gross misunderstanding? If you want to put words into my mouth, go ahead, but if you expect me to take that seriously, you'll be disappointed.

You must either be confusing my criticism of a certain type of action with criticism of any action, or making the non sequitur that it follows from my criticism of a certain type of action that I'm in favour of no action whatsoever.

Congratulations. You've just understood the basic principle of just war theory as developed in the West during the last couple millennia. This is precisely the basis on which we (the West and her allies) would seek to aid our Syrian and Iraqi brothers and sisters by means of military force. — Thorongil

That's stretching the notion of self-defense just a tad. If it helps clarify, I'm only willing to go as far as saying that I'm in favour of limited and proportional self-defense, but even that would have to be weighed against any risk to innocents.

And... I'm... officially done trying to explain anything to a European. — Mongrel

Discrimination. Nice. I thought that you were better than that, but you seem to have shown your true colours here. I think that Baden was right. You really do have a chip on your shoulder, and you're taking it out on Europeans, some of whom happen to be quite bright.

Lighten up, dude.

Again...

... can we actually identify the "underlying problem" without causing even more problems in the process? — Mayor of Simpleton

Obviously not, so I've WON!

At what point are we going to re-name the forum to"The Jerry Springer Forum"?

Seriously!

This reads on the level of the unmoderated section of old PF.

At the moment...

Facebook 1 : The Philosophy Forum 0.

Also another point...

... to everyone who keeps implying that they're done with this rant and then keeps on ranting, you're only done when you finally shut up.

Meow!

GREG

btw... Sorry Benkei, but it seems this bullshit-a-thon hijacked the thread, in spite of efforts to re-rail it.

The only good thing is this even bigger bullshit-a-thon election will be finally over in about 74 days and I'm sure we'll be off on a new rant-o-thon de jour contributing nothing to the circumstances other than repeatedly dislocating shoulder blades in the hope to pat one's self on the back.

One thing is for sure... I'll be back in December. Indeed... my prize is leaving until this returns to a level of adult conversation with philosophical insights.

Until then... here's a tool to help you guys settle this rant: http://www.mraverage.com/sizer.php

Lighten up, dude. — Mongrel

What is "dude"? Me European, no understand.

Meh, I've seen you do worse in POR. :)

that it follows from my criticism of a certain type of action that I'm in favour of no action whatsoever. — Sapientia

So what is your proposal? The continued absence of one in your posts does nothing, I'm afraid, but imply that you agree with inaction. If I am misunderstanding, then it behooves you to correct that understanding.

Again, what do you suggest to solve the problem in question? Pray it away? Hold hands and sing kumbaya? I've already given you the only three option available to you, me, and everyone else: 1) continued medical/food aid, 2) diplomacy, and 3) greater military assistance and intervention. I've stated that the first option is now much in danger and the second is impossible. That leaves us with the third. Is there a fourth I don't know about? If so, please enlighten me and cease dancing around the subject.

Good riddance. One suspects the link you provide at the end of your ridiculous tirade is best fit for yourself, given the impression emanating from your post that you alone ride on the cloud of reason and civility above the frivolous vulgarity of the denizens of this thread. I rarely see you post much else besides long strings of tersely worded unphilosophical observations laced with failed attempts at humor. At the very least, they're no worse than my botched attempts at aphorism or the tiresome sarcasm of the fellow who with what effrontery dares label himself the Latin for "wisdom."

So what is your proposal? The continued absence of one in your posts does nothing, I'm afraid, but imply that you agree with inaction. If I am misunderstanding, then it behooves you to correct that understanding.

Again, what do you suggest to solve the problem in question? Pray it away? Hold hands and sing kumbaya? I've already given you the only three option available to you, me, and everyone else: 1) continued medical/food aid, 2) diplomacy, and 3) greater military assistance and intervention. I've stated that the first option is now much in danger and the second is impossible. That leaves us with the third. Is there a fourth I don't know about? If so, please enlighten me and cease dancing around the subject. — Thorongil

I don't have all the answers. Sorry, it isn't that simple. Obviously we should do what we can within reason and morality, but, as you know, I have moral objections to military intervention before even getting around to addressing the practicalities such as its likelihood of success, whether it will improve things or make things worse. This is open to discussion. It isn't set in stone, and there are opposing views which I will also take into consideration. I haven't as of yet reached a position that I can be sure of as much you seem to be, although the thought of having blood on my hands is repellent, so I won't be rushing into a decision to condone actions which will cause bloodshed.

Would you commit to something against your conscience? If not, don't expect me too.

I don't have all the answers. Sorry, it isn't that simple. Obviously we should do what we can within reason and morality, but, as you know, I have moral objections to military intervention before even getting around to addressing the practicalities such as its likelihood of success, whether it will improve things or make things worse. This is open to discussion. It isn't set in stone, and there are opposing views which I will also take into consideration. — Sapientia

Well then it's as I thought. I did not misunderstand you, for this (non) answer de facto means to do nothing, at least nothing more than we've been doing. Hence, you are a status quo fetishist.

Would you commit to something against your conscience? If not, don't expect me too. — Sapientia

It's apparently not against your conscience to irritate me and engage in fruitless conversation in full awareness of what you are doing, so I don't think too highly of your conscience.

Well then it's as I thought. I did not misunderstand you, for this (non) answer is de facto to do nothing, at least nothing more than we've been doing. Hence, you are a status quo fetishist. — Thorongil

And you've endorsed the kind of military intervention which has failed in the past and arguably made matters worse, so you shouldn't be so cocksure, and should be a little more empathetic.

Obviously not, so I've WON! — Mayor of Simpleton

I thought it was pretty obvious that guns and bombs and what-nots mass-murder people. No guns and bombs and what-nots = no mass murder.

It doesn't take much thinking, more so philosophizing, to see this. ;)

It's apparently not against your conscience to irritate me and engage in fruitless conversation in full awareness of what you are doing, so I don't think too highly of your conscience. — Thorongil

You might find this hard to believe, but you yourself can be irritating at times, as well as irritable, it would seem. Sometimes it doesn't take much for you to get all curt and snappy. You know you can be just as antagonistic as me.

I don't think that it has been fruitless. Not for me at least. I raised a serious question, and expressed criticism of your position, and I managed to get from you, eventually, a serious reply. You have given me something to think about, so I think it was worth provoking a half-decent response from you. This is the kind of thing that happens on a philosophy forum. Suck it up.

If you're upset that I haven't been able to give you the answer that you were looking for, then maybe I'll give it some more thought and get back to you at some point with something with a little more meat on the bone.

Obviously not, so I've WON! — Mayor of Simpleton

You didn't bring up Hitler. So... no. You didn't win.

Did anyone bring up insufficient blood flow to the heart muscle? It'll break your heart.

I guess the point I was trying to make to you was this: Life is a bloody mess sometimes. Sometimes you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs. The only way to really avoid that is to become a pacifist. But in that state, we might indict you for a different kind of crime... that you stood by and did nothing. Sometimes it's not a choice between perfection and a messy solution. It's a choice between two bloody messes. — Mongrel

Thanks for reiterating it in a way which is easier for me to grasp. Perhaps I overlooked it in your last post.

Yes, it certainly is a bloody mess. And it may well come down to a choice between a rock and a hard place. I honestly don't know quite what to make of it all. I know that I'm not the only one who doesn't claim to have all the answers and who has reservations about some of the proposals that are being pushed. There are proposed solutions which might do the job, so to speak, but have failed in the past and have even contributed to making matters worse, on top of being difficult to conscionably advocate. And despite ongoing efforts, the situation is still dire.

And despite ongoing efforts, the situation is still dire. — Sapientia

I know that. And I grieve for the people of Syria and the surrounding area. I hope peace comes soon.

A nice performative example of the underlying problem...?

We're all so lonely if we're this diverse about the important things.