Yeah, and I think TGW made a good point about defining it. Now that Clinton has mentioned it, and dozens of pundits have followed up with their denunciations of it, whatever meaning it had will now be lost in a sea of negative connotations. It's just another spooky -ism to scare those on the left into voting for Hillary.

I was watching the CBS evening news the other night and they had a report on this. During the segment the presenter called Milo Yiannopoulos a white nationalist. I almost fell out of my chair. That's what the establishment media thinks of the Alt-Right and poor Milo? Wow. Milo is a professional troll who tries his best to test the limits of free speech, for which I commend him, even though it causes him to be utterly ridiculous. But it's not hard to understand that this is what he's doing, so it's amazing that CBS fell for it. Many of those on the Alt-Right may be genuine racists, I have no doubt about that, but to cast the whole movement in such terms shows once again that the left is only capable of smears.

Because the media and politicians want you to be afraid. Very afraid!

See my first post.

Where have you been in this thread....

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. — Sapientia

It's too late in the present case, so I will simply leave you with this: War has already been declared, and it has been declared against you. The forces of ISIS seek your death, or else your enslavement They could not be more explicit about it. The only question is when you will recognize this. No, Europe is not the main theater of the war, but it is a part of it nonetheless. For the first time in some 70 odd years, bombs and bullets can be heard again in its great cities. Why? Because the West refuses to destroy the source. You shouldn't be so cocksure that playing around with evil and letting it fester is not itself a colossal failure, morally speaking and otherwise.

Not for me at least. — Sapientia

Wonders never cease. The feeling is not exactly mutual, though.

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.

like the Libertarian Party — Harry Hindu

>:O

No.

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."

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.

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.

We thought that the death of Muammar Gaddafi would improve the situation in Libya. Apparently it didn't. — Bitter Crank

This is because we never allocated the proper resources to help stabilize the country. Obama didn't want to go through congress to get approval to declare war against Gaddafi's regime, which would have enabled greater resources, since he wanted to maintain his image as the anti-war senator who voted against the Iraq war. So he was forced into employing very limited military operations so as not to call it a war. It's all the more ironic because the failure of post-liberation Iraq had to with the same paucity of resources and planning on the part of the US in the beginning of the conflict (which necessitated the surge and so on).

Maybe killing Assad would lead to a beneficial shift in power in favor of a more civil government. And maybe not. — Bitter Crank

It would undoubtedly lead to this if we but wanted it to.

We can be fairly certain that American troops would have difficulty identifying who was who in the urban guerrilla fighting in Aleppo and other Syrian cities. Would the multi-lateral European Union Force do better? Nato? I don't know who would best save the day here. Dutch troops led by the Israeli Defense Force, maybe? — Bitter Crank

We ought to listen to the Kurds, who have probably the best intelligence on the ground.

which flies in the face of humanitarianism — Sapientia

It is an even greater affront to human dignity and rights not to intervene with the appropriate measures to end injustice and barbarity. You appear to be a status quo fetishist who apparently thinks that it's okay to leave things as they are, as long as doing so doesn't increase the sum total of human misery. Well, that sum is sometimes ballooned to a greater enormity by not acting forcefully and decisively. It's all well and good to send aid workers to places like Syria. But what if they start being murdered and bombed, as is now happening (several hospitals have been destroyed in the last week alone)? We do nothing? I'm sorry, but that is a grotesque position. We in the West have the capability to deal a decisive military blow to Assad and ISIS but refuse to do so due to the absurd isolationist opinions of people like you. Genocide must continue because you're worried about collateral damage. How shameful.

Drop the humanitarian tag. — Sapientia

No, I won't, because that is their purpose. Are you a pacifist? I get the distinct feeling I'm arguing against a latent assumption in your position you have yet to disclose.

But then written off as collateral damage nonetheless. — Sapientia

What would you prefer to call it? If you conceive of the accidents in war to be on a par with deliberate murder, then you possess no moral sense at all. The intentions of actions determine the degree of their justice and morality. You may disagree, but this is the principle on which the law is founded.

yet you count the invasion of Iraq as an example, despite the known cost to innocent human lives it would and did entail. I wouldn't include it at all, although I accept that there were good intentions involved. Unfortunately, at the end of the day, it's actions that count, and they can't be reversed. — Sapientia

Actions do matter, yes, but that's all the more reason not to abandon our fellow human beings in Iraq and Syria to the scourge of militant jihadists. They cannot defeat the latter on their own, at least not quickly. Or do you object to their military actions too, on account of the collateral damage involved in protecting themselves through the use of force?

Does so-called collateral damage sit well with this? — Sapientia

Collateral damage is tragic and ought not sit well with anyone.

These are fellow human beings, after all. — Sapientia

You don't say....

Are the bombs and bullets which do such damage and cause such harm representative of acts of kindness, benevolence and sympathy? — Sapientia

Who is firing them, and at whom, and for what purpose? These are questions you have naively neglected, or perhaps cynically neglected, to ask. Assad and ISIS care nothing for collateral damage. The concept is indeed foreign to them, since they seek to cause damage an sich. Military intervention, chiefly by the West, would seek to destroy these forces, in order to end their reign of terror and violence. By all means, let the Red Cross bring aid. Their work is impossibly brave and moral, but they are merely putting a band-aid over a cancerous wound. It is the tumor of these barbarians that needs to be extricated from the body of this region, post haste.

Are these human beings taken into full consideration when attempting to enact humanitarian principles, or are they just written off as collateral damage? — Sapientia

They most certainly are taken into consideration.

Perhaps there is humanitarian intent, but this is coupled with recklessness, incompetence, and a lack of foresight. — Sapientia

Quite so.

Is that included in your notion of humanitarian military intervention? — Sapientia

Why would it be? No, of course not. I condemn the mismanagement and incompetence of military humanitarian intervention to the utmost, but this does not besmirch the ideals and intentions behind such enterprises in the slightest, which, after all, are not all failures.

But they haven't.

That's correct about what it doesn't consist of.

So, they cite an organization that isn't BLM to prove that BLM cares about black on black violence. Whites also do kill other whites, but not at the same rates as blacks killing other blacks. The latter are arrested more often because they commit more crimes. This is not hard to understand. And then, of course, "institutional racism," the tin-foil hat trump card, which is the nebulous borg-like hive mind that cops and damn near everyone else is supposedly tapping into. No facts, just -isms. Sorry MTV (really? MTV?), you're full of shit.

How about the point up above above about the apparent contradiction between humanitarianism and military intervention which causes humanitarian crises? — Sapientia

It remains apparent.

Then please refer me to (or as is more likely, concoct) this serious point I seem to have missed buried under the mountain of sarcasm you have provided.

But I won't be silenced. — Sapientia

So is it that you like hearing yourself talk or that you have a genuine interest in what I have to say? I suspect the former. You don't care what I think. You've already made up your mind, hence the profusions of sarcasm. I at least know when to stop a conversation if I find it will be no use continuing it, as I did with the other gentleman in this thread.

If you lead with all sarcasm, without providing a serious counter-point, then you don't deserve my comment.

If the shoe fits, then it fits.

such as a falling minimum wage — VagabondSpectre

False. There was higher black employment without the minimum wage, and this was during segregation.

the disproportionate affliction of police violence and incarceration on blacks — VagabondSpectre

This is due to the fact that blacks commit more crimes, overwhelmingly against each other, which shows the moral vacuity of a movement like Black Lives Matter. The people in this movement do not care about and felt no need to protest the dozens of black lives being mowed down by their fellow blacks in places like Chicago. No mass vigils with faux civil rights leaders like Sharpton and Jackson flying in. No media frenzy. No comment from the president. Nothing. It's only when a stray white cop who seems to murder a black man that people go ballistic. Never mind the fact that at least half the officers involved in these high profile cases have been acquitted once further evidence is brought to light and are not even white. No matter, it's all one vast conspiracy of "systemic racism."

I would also add that poverty doesn't have to or always lead to crime. My family was extremely poor for a time, to the point of being on food stamps, but it never occurred to me or my parents to result to violence or illegal behavior. And why was that? Because we were raised in an environment that respected the rule of law, morality, education, and high culture (music, art, literature). The "culture" many blacks cultivate and associate with is revolting, with its glorification of violence and illiteracy, hatred of police and authority figures, the denigration of women, etc. You can go on about other causes for the present situation, but the primary one is cultural. Until blacks in greater numbers lay down their guns, stop having unprotected sex and abusing the women in their lives, respect authority and education, and attempt to find jobs, however entry-level they may be, that pay for their and their family's basic needs rather than tricking out their cars or buying iPads, then nothing much will change.

A solid bait, but I'm not taking it. Your language is even more calculated to show that continuing the conversation would be unproductive.

Which one?

A catch-22. I already said I would not respond to the fellow, and yet I am effectively compelled to do so lest I be made to look like a petulant grudge-holder. Well, I shall only say that I do not know what I would apologize for. I spoke the truth when I said the aforementioned fellow is an ignoramus, with whom I do not enjoy conversing. Why should I apologize for speaking truthfully and honestly? Is this to lack civility, stating what one thinks? Civility, then, sounds more like an excuse to lie so as not to offend. I'm quite happy to cause offense. Nor do I care if people like me, least of all the person in question. It is good to have enemies, for it shows that one thinks for oneself without deference to the herd.

I'm tempted to say I have none, but will say virtue ethics for now.

OK, cool.

Is there a way to block certain users?

It seems to me you are just shooting from the hip talking about how you feel and not suggesting any realistic course of action. — m-theory

And it seems you're an ignoramus who's trying way too hard to sound clever and ironic. I don't like conversing with you, as I said before, because it's utterly unproductive. So don't expect to see any more replies from me.

Would you consider the Gulf and Iraq wars to fall under the definition as you understand it, for example? — Baden

Absolutely.

I am curious how long do you think it would take to "fix" syria if the west did invade? — m-theory

I don't know.

And why you believe that the people there would be eager for the west to come in and "fix" it? — m-theory

They already are. People in the region have demanded military assistance to drive out ISIS and Assad for a long time now.

Doing good by killing people is rarely right. — mcdoodle

So... just continue with the status quo of genocide and let ISIS have their "Islamic State," then? Mmk.

I enquired what "humanitarian military intervention" entailed. — Sapientia

Why would this not already be obvious?

I would, were it a serious one.

Who do you think the good guys are in syria? — m-theory

Women, children, the Syrian rebels (some of them), the Kurds, and the Iraqis.

If the US did invade and occupy syria who would we place in charge that was not a bad guy? — m-theory

The idea would be to let the Syrians decide by implementing a democracy with the secular rule of law. Before that, the military would have to stabilize the country.

I don't think we can just kill the problems away in syria — m-theory

Nor do I. But killing does go a long way in this instance.

of course I don't agree that the US or west should intervene in syrai with military force. — m-theory

"Of course."

simply being outraged about the tragedies is not a good reason for a military invasion and occupation. — m-theory

There is historical precedent for humanitarian intervention, and I've already given you one example. You may not know much about these things, and I suspect you don't given the content of your posts, but international law mandates that certain action, including military actions, be taken to stop crimes against humanity.

It is not clear to me who the bad guys are in this case. — m-theory

Then you're blind.

Who do you think ought to be held responsible? — m-theory

Assad, ISIS, and Al-Nusra.

Islam itself is not the problem as far as I am concerned. — m-theory

It is the internally fractured nature of Islam at present that is the problem.

The problem is the idea that society should be governed in accordance with religious beliefs. — m-theory

Indeed.

I believe the west has the right idea about separation of church and state but sadly many middle eastern nations do not hold those values. — m-theory

Indeed.

We never listened to the wise and, as it turned out, prescient words of George Washington in his farewell address about the dangers of party:

In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection.

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

often it is not clear just who that it is — m-theory

No, it's very clear in the present case.

but to believe it would fix the issue at hand is just folly — m-theory

No one ever said, or ought to say, that military intervention would solve the crisis within Islam at the moment. It's merely a method of ending the immediate and horrific violence, just as the West did in Bosnia, for example. That intervention never pretended to make relations between Serbian Christians and Bosnian Muslims perfect, but it did end what was escalating into a genocide and brought to justice those responsible for it.

Those stats are of philosophers, not atheists as a general category.

More like, "we reject your presumption of moral authority!". — Sapientia

Which often results in moral relativism or nihilism....

How many atheists are unabashed moral realists? I honestly doubt there's that many.

Military intervention which tries a little harder to avoid killing innocents, but does so nonetheless? Military intervention which kills innocents, but does so conscionabley? These missiles kill this amount of innocents, but these other missiles kill less, so they're alright. — Sapientia

So you're capable of flippant mockery. Congratulations.

It will take more boots on the ground in my estimation, or else we will continue to see very slow progress if any at all. The Syrian situation called for humanitarian military intervention years ago, but the West was too cowardly to act due to the perceived failure of Iraq and an increasingly isolationist electorate.

Eudaimonia would be the only perfect experience, and thus the only perfectly good experience. — darthbarracuda

It's strange to hear you essentially espouse a summum bonum. What led you to such a seemingly robust teleology? Although, you do say "would be." Does this mean you doubt it can be achieved?