One Eyed Jack
New member
Skeptic, don't be an idiot. When somebody's trying to take your life, you've pretty much reached the last resort.
Letter of Apology
- Thread starter BillyBob
- Start date
Skeptic, don't be an idiot. When somebody's trying to take your life, you've pretty much reached the last resort.
Riiiight. That'll happen.
Skeptic
New member
Just because someone is trying to take your life, it does not logically follow that there is no other way to prevent them from succeeding except killing them first.
Was invading Iraq a last resort? Was Saddam such a grave and imminent threat that there were no other options for dealing with him but invading Iraq and killing tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in the process?
PureX
Well-known member
The whole point of being an absolutist is to pretend that the world and it's problems are all very simple. That's why absolutism always leads to extremism - to eliminate having to recon with complexity, the absolutist simply views everything in polar extremes. That way he can imagine that no matter what problem or circumstance he's looking at, it'll always appear as simple as 'this' or 'that'.
George Bush and many of his supporters are absolutists. They are the haters of complexity, and are the haters of intellectuals because intellectuals are willing to embrace complexity. They view the world in polar extremes because that makes the world look simple to them. And they really want to believe that the world and everything in it is very simple. They both fear and resent complexity and the people who can embrace complexity. They actually believe that the intellectuals among us are really just fools who over-complicate everything, or are using the confusion of complexity to get away with something. In fact, they really believe that they're the smart ones because they can see how simple the world really is while the intellectuals can't, or won't. But in reality they're just being governed by their emotions and are therefor basically irrational.
This is why absolutists can't see any other solution to a problem or a threat but overwhelming force and total anihilation. In fact, if you watch these threads for a while, you'll see that basically killing people is the absolutist's preferred solution to almost everything. To consider anything else causes them to have to confront life's complexity and ambiguity. And they both fear and hate complexity and ambiguity so much that they'd basically rather just propose killing people.
And sadly, one of these absolutists is now our president.
Last edited:
By the time you've "reconned the complexity", you're either dead or enslaved.Originally posted by :mock
The whole point of being an absolutist is to pretend that the world and it's problems are all very simple. That's why absolutism always leads to extremism - to eliminate having to recon with complexity, the absolutist simply views everything in polar extremes. That way he can imagine that no matter what problem or circumstance he's looking at, it'll always appear as simple as 'this' or 'that'.
:yawn: Lie-beral screed.
:yawn: Simplistic and stupid lie-beral screed.
YEAH!! :thumb:
PureX
Well-known member
Skeptic,
You'll notice that because these absolutists can't deal with anything complex, their only response to the posts that offend them is this sort of idiotic name-calling and irrational drivel. They can't actually address the issue, because real issues tend to be complicated and to have various viable points of view. So the only way they have of expressing their negative emotions toward this complexity (remember that they are emotionally driven) is to spit irrational insults at those who dare to expose the complexity of life to them, and their inability/unwillingness to deal with it.
In the Bush's case, he can't go around spitting irrational insults at people who dare to contradict his extremist oversimplifications of reality, so he "punishes" them in other ways. When news people ask him questions that expose his aversion to the complexities of tort reform, for example, he has their access to him and the white house barred. When other nation's leaders questioned his blinding over-simplification of the "danger in Iraq" he began cutting off our dealings with them as a form of retribution. Being driven by emotion, absolutists often become very petty and spiteful in their behavior, and George Bush is well known for having a very egosistical vindictive streak, just as he is also well known for rewarding those who support his extremist views of reality.
It's a sad time in America.
You'll notice that because these absolutists can't deal with anything complex, their only response to the posts that offend them is this sort of idiotic name-calling and irrational drivel. They can't actually address the issue, because real issues tend to be complicated and to have various viable points of view. So the only way they have of expressing their negative emotions toward this complexity (remember that they are emotionally driven) is to spit irrational insults at those who dare to expose the complexity of life to them, and their inability/unwillingness to deal with it.
In the Bush's case, he can't go around spitting irrational insults at people who dare to contradict his extremist oversimplifications of reality, so he "punishes" them in other ways. When news people ask him questions that expose his aversion to the complexities of tort reform, for example, he has their access to him and the white house barred. When other nation's leaders questioned his blinding over-simplification of the "danger in Iraq" he began cutting off our dealings with them as a form of retribution. Being driven by emotion, absolutists often become very petty and spiteful in their behavior, and George Bush is well known for having a very egosistical vindictive streak, just as he is also well known for rewarding those who support his extremist views of reality.
It's a sad time in America.
PureX
Well-known member
The terrorists divide all humanity up into the righteous and the unrighteous because they are absolutists, and absolutists view everything through opposite extremes. They imagine that they are the righteous ones, of course, and so anyone who would disagree with their religious conception of righteousness is perceived to be 'at war' with them. As absolutists, they can allow for only one "right way" and that way is their way, so anyone who would dare to embrace another way will automatically be embracing the "wrong way", or in religious extremist's terms, they must be embracing/promoting evil. Thus they see themselves as the only righteous human beings on Earth, and everyone else as an infidel. And not only is everyone else an infidel, but all infidels are the enemies of righteousness, and therefor are God's enemies, and their enemies.
Since they preceive themselves to be at war with all infidels, and since the only solution to war is to anihilate, by violence, the "enemy", that's what they intend to do.
Interestingly enough, George Bush views his own position in very much the same way. He believes that he and those who support him are the only truly righteous ones on Earth (the "born again" Christians) - appointed by God to "fight the evildoers", and that anyone who would disagree with him is likewise an infidel (he would call them "unbelievers", I suppose) who is working either wittingly or unwittingly for satan. Thus, they would be the an "enemy" of God, and so their enemy, too. And the only solution an absolutist has for dealing with enemies is to anihilate them. Bush can't kill everyone he perceives to be an enemy as the terrorists might, but he eliminates them from 'his world' as he is able.
The complexity that both these examples of absolutists deny is that "righteousness" is relative. And because it's relative, it's also ambiguous. It's difficult to be sure that we're "right" when we understand that what appears right from one person's perspective may appear very wrong from another's perspective in any given circumstance. Recognizing this would mean that to try and determine our own righteousness in any given situation would mean that we'd have to try and view the situation from the perspective of the other people involved, and not just from our own. And then we'd be forced to see that we're probably not going to be "right" from every perspective and some of those perspectives will be as valid as our own. We'll end up having to compromise and do the best we can given the specific conditions leaving our feeling of "righteousness" in a somewhat ambiguous position. And in fact this is how it will be for us most of the time and it's this ambiguity that the absolutists can't abide.
Bush attacked Saddam basically only because he perceived Saddam as his enemy and he understands only one way of dealing with enemies. The 9/11 attack had nothing to do with Iraq but this was irrelevant to Bush. Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction but this too was irrelevant to Bush. They were just excuses Bush used to get the american people to let him do what he was absolutely convinced was right. The possibility that he (Bush) could have been "wrong" is inconceivable to Bush because Bush has already been convinced by his absolutist religious dogma that he is one of the "righteous ones" and is therefor an extension of God's will in this world. God can't make mistakes, and so neither can Bush as he's doing God's will. This is his "logic". It's the same "logic" that the terrorist's used to justify flying planes into the WTC, but neither can see this because neither of them can view theor own actions through the eyes of others, and neither want to. To do so would render their "righteousness" ambiguous. It would render their own perspectives subjective and relative. And they can't accept that.
The whole point of absolutism is to presume one's self to be absolutely right and anyone who disagree with you to be absolutely wrong. And this is what falls apart when we begin to recognize the relativism of our limited human perspectives. This is what the complexity of reality does to us, it makes us have to confront the relative and limited nature of our human perspective on existence. In the real world, we don't get to be "right". We only get to be as right as we can be given our limited understanding of what's right and our limited ability to indulge it, which means that we're very likely to be wrong even when we think we're right. And this is what's so unsettling to absolutists. They'd rather anihilate other human beings than admit to themselves that they might be wrong even when they think they're right. They'd rather anihilate other human beings than take the time to consider the circumstances from those other people's perspective. Their own imagined righteousness is far more important to them than the existence or well-being of other people. And this selfishness is reflected in their behavior.
dotcom
New member
Here is your statement that I found irrational:
George Bush and many of his supporters are absolutists. They are the haters of complexity, and are the haters of intellectuals because intellectuals are willing to embrace complexity. They view the world in polar extremes because that makes the world look simple to them. And they really want to believe that the world and everything in it is very simple. They both fear and resent complexity and the people who can embrace complexity. They actually believe that the intellectuals among us are really just fools who over-complicate everything, or are using the confusion of complexity to get away with something. In fact, they really believe that they're the smart ones because they can see how simple the world really is while the intellectuals can't, or won't. But in reality they're just being governed by their emotions and are therefor basically irrational.
If you want to talk about absolutism, talk about absolutism, but don't think it such a complex issue only non-Bush supporters can understand. You are just full of hot air wasting time with useless semantics. If PureX can figure it out, anybody can figure it out. Don't claim complexity where there is none.
PureX
Well-known member
The problem with your objection is that you seem to have imagined that I claimed these people are stupid, and so are unable to handle complexity. This is not the case. They aren't too stupid to address the complexity of life, they're willfully ignorant, and so refuse to address it. They prefer to pretend that life is absurdly simple by viewing it only through polar extremes. This makes them feel smart and strong and decisive without having to address the confusion and ambiguity that comes with the complicated reality of life.
I get a kick out of watching Bush on TV - after repeating for the thousanth time about how Saddam was and evil-doer and the terrorists are evil-doers too because they refuse to accept Bush and the american way as their divinely appointed saviors he always says: "see?" as if he were explaining some very clever bit of insight to a slow-minded child. He really believes that he can see through the clutter of imaginary complexity to the simple truth of the matter. It's absurd, of course, but Bush is an absolutist. In his world everything is about the good-doers and evil-doers. Saddam = bad. Bush = good. That's all there is to it .... "see?"
hahaha
dotcom
New member
One Eyed Jack
New member
That's the surest way. I've never heard of a dead person committing murder. Have you?
Yes. Saddam could have met the UN resolutions, or failing that, he could have stepped down when he was given the chance. He didn't do either, so we went in and took him down just like we said we would.
We've been trying other options for years, and they simply didn't work. Allowing him to remain in power presented too much of a threat to our allies in the region, and inflicted too many hardships on the people of Iraq. Removing him from power was the best option, and really the only one left.
I'm not aware of tens of thousands of innocent men, women, and children being killed in our invasion of Iraq. Did people just start slaughtering their families when they heard we were coming in, or what?
Last edited: