Philosophy Now Forum

Arising_uk wrote:

Melchior wrote:The point is that I should not have to pay dues if I am not a member.

Over here you don't, closed-shops were abandoned a long time back.

Well, those are being outlawed and Chomsky is leading opposition to that!

Where are these closed-shops?

Arising_uk wrote:Where are these closed-shops?

All over the US! Right-to-work laws are being passed to open up these places.

Sent to the management of this site:

"I must protest, in the strongest possible terms, your award to Noam Chomsky, quite possibly the most despicable biological entity on the planet. I avoid the term 'human being' deliberately, because he certainly does not qualify."

"I must protest, in the strongest possible terms, your award to Noam Chomsky, quite possibly the most despicable biological entity on the planet. I avoid the term 'human being' deliberately, because he certainly does not qualify.

That is certainly over the top and uncalled for.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Noam Chomsky was a big critic of the Viet Nam War. I'm sure he thought it was a stupid war and institutionally stupid for America. So the award he has been given in the fight against stupidity includes his criticism of that war.

I don't know if you can call war stupid. They happen for a reason and are primal. What is stupid about wars is how they are conducted. It is terrible how many people were killed and how much was destroyed. But in hindsight it is a better world for it. Lesson were learned and because of it Viet Nam ended its isolation and became part of the world of nations. The stupid part is the price it cost in people and resources.

A stupid war was that in Iraq, and Afghanistan. The invasion of Iraq wasn't the stupid part. It was how it was conducted that was stupid. If it had been conducted in a better manner it would not be the hell it is today with its ethnic and religious divides.

The thing is, could things have been done smarter in Iraq and Afghanistan? I don't think so considering the idiosyncrasies and attitudes that existed back then, especially with respect to the politics that were in play at the time.

Spike, wars are never conducted in any other way than violence. It has not made a better world, except only for the elits, whose only motive is to gain and keep power at the expense of any notion of progress.

spike wrote:

"I must protest, in the strongest possible terms, your award to Noam Chomsky, quite possibly the most despicable biological entity on the planet. I avoid the term 'human being' deliberately, because he certainly does not qualify.

That is certainly over the top and uncalled for.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Noam Chomsky was a big critic of the Viet Nam War. I'm sure he thought it was a stupid war and institutionally stupid for America. So the award he has been given in the fight against stupidity includes his criticism of that war.

I don't know if you can call war stupid. They happen for a reason and are primal. What is stupid about wars is how they are conducted. It is terrible how many people were killed and how much was destroyed. But in hindsight it is a better world for it. Lesson were learned and because of it Viet Nam ended its isolation and became part of the world of nations. The stupid part is the price it cost in people and resources.

A stupid war was that in Iraq, and Afghanistan. The invasion of Iraq wasn't the stupid part. It was how it was conducted that was stupid. If it had been conducted in a better manner it would not be the hell it is today with its ethnic and religious divides.

The thing is, could things have been done smarter in Iraq and Afghanistan? I don't think so considering the idiosyncrasies and attitudes that existed back then, especially with respect to the politics that were in play at the time.

It was entirely called for! Many of us opposed the war in Viet Nam, but not for the same reasons. It was not fought to win. We didn't bomb the shit out of Hanoi. The war as it was fought was stupid, but the war itself was justified. We act like pansies, not Romans! We owe the enemy nothing but a swift and decisive attack. Prompt and utter destruction.

I would love to see that mother-fucker Chomsky in battle. He is a stupid coward. I watched him on TV last night, and he is so evil it is beyond description. I would love to engage him in a debate toe-to-toe. That mother-fucker would lose, I guarantee you that!

Melchior wrote:It was entirely called for! Many of us opposed the war in Viet Nam, but not for the same reasons. It was not fought to win. We didn't bomb the shit out of Hanoi. ...

Er! You flew over 700 sorties on Hanoi just over Christmas?

You dropped more ordinance on Vietnam than was dropped on Europe during WWII?

The war as it was fought was stupid, but the war itself was justified. ...

Why? Did Vietnam declare war upon the US?

We act like pansies, not Romans! We owe the enemy nothing but a swift and decisive attack. Prompt and utter destruction.

You tried very hard and lost.

I would love to see that mother-fucker Chomsky in battle. He is a stupid coward. I watched him on TV last night, and he is so evil it is beyond description. I would love to engage him in a debate toe-to-toe. That mother-fucker would lose, I guarantee you that!

Where did you serve?

Arising_uk wrote:

Melchior wrote:It was entirely called for! Many of us opposed the war in Viet Nam, but not for the same reasons. It was not fought to win. We didn't bomb the shit out of Hanoi. ...

Er! You flew over 700 sorties on Hanoi just over Christmas?

You dropped more ordinance on Vietnam than was dropped on Europe during WWII?

The war as it was fought was stupid, but the war itself was justified. ...

Why? Did Vietnam declare war upon the US?

We act like pansies, not Romans! We owe the enemy nothing but a swift and decisive attack. Prompt and utter destruction.

You tried very hard and lost.

I would love to see that mother-fucker Chomsky in battle. He is a stupid coward. I watched him on TV last night, and he is so evil it is beyond description. I would love to engage him in a debate toe-to-toe. That mother-fucker would lose, I guarantee you that!

Where did you serve?

I didn't.

p.s.
Why should you act like Romans when you avoid imperial responsibility?

Arising_uk wrote:p.s.
Why should you act like Romans when you avoid imperial responsibility?

Who said I did?

And why do the movies almost always portray the Romans as the 'bad guys'? I am sick of hearing about Massada. They were a bunch of rabble!

https://youtu.be/ExWfh6sGyso

Reg: All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
PFJ Member: Brought peace?
Reg: Oh, peace? SHUT UP!

Melchior wrote:Who said I did?

Melchior wrote:We act like pansies, not Romans! We owe the enemy nothing but a swift and decisive attack. Prompt and utter destruction

And why do the movies almost always portray the Romans as the 'bad guys'? I am sick of hearing about Massada. ...

We live in different worlds as over here I'd say 99% of the population have never heard of Massada.

They were a bunch of rabble!

So much so that the Romans had to disperse them.

Due to our history the Roman occupation is considered a time of civilisation and brutal conquest. So good guys and bad.

Arising_uk wrote:

Melchior wrote:Who said I did?

Melchior wrote:We act like pansies, not Romans! We owe the enemy nothing but a swift and decisive attack. Prompt and utter destruction

And why do the movies almost always portray the Romans as the 'bad guys'? I am sick of hearing about Massada. ...

We live in different worlds as over here I'd say 99% of the population have never heard of Massada.

They were a bunch of rabble!

So much so that the Romans had to disperse them.

Due to our history the Roman occupation is considered a time of civilisation and brutal conquest. So good guys and bad.

Why is it that our law is based on Roman Law, that everything we call 'civilization' harkens back to Rome, yet we persist on vilifying them? I am SICK of it!

Melchior wrote:...
Why is it that our law is based on Roman Law, that everything we call 'civilization' harkens back to Rome, yet we persist on vilifying them? I am SICK of it!

That's the Holy Roman Empire for you.

Melchior wrote: Why is it that our law is based on Roman Law, that everything we call 'civilization' harkens back to Rome, yet we persist on vilifying them? I am SICK of it!

They may have had good ideas about government, but that doesn't escape them from corruption and urge for power. And no, everything about civilization does not go back to Rome; there were many empires and kingdoms before Rome.