@Iranian dude

[Uncle Sherm]

If the United States gave Iran reparation money today, what benefit will the world gain?

You mean besides the improvement in the level of justice?

How is the level of justice measured?

Well it better not be in relative terms. Then it doesn't count.

That's why I'm asking you how it is measured. If it were in relative terms, then it is meaningless.

Dave condemns the US for helping Stalin consolidate power in the Soviet Union

Yep.

I don't suppose you'd be willing to expand on this premise, would you? Because I'd LOVE to hear it.

condemns the US for assisting Afghanistan when the Soviet Union attempts to spread its fascism to them

We assisted Al Queda right into their country and those stupid Afghans didn't thank us once!

Al Qaeda moved to Afghanistan from Libya after the Saudis rejected Bin Laden's offer to defend the Islamic Holy Land from Saddam Hussein's army. You are probably thinking about the Afghan resistance, which was given Stinger Missiles to shoot down Soviet Helicopters during the Cold War. The Arab fighters that showed up at the time were funded out of Bin Laden's own deep pockets.

condemns the US for doing nothing when a brutal theocracy came to power

Yeah, this makes sense.

So, what's your opinion on how we are dealing with Iran's brutal theocracy? That's right, we should be giving them money.

and thinks we owe Iran money for the damages done when their revolution established their own theocracy.

Don't forget about when they revolutioned away their own democracy too! Iran should be thanking us for freeing them from all that chaos.

Damned if we do, damned if we don't, right Dave?

[Reagraham Lincool]

If the United States gave Iran reparation money today, what benefit will the world gain?

You mean besides the improvement in the level of justice?

How is the level of justice measured?

Well it better not be in relative terms. Then it doesn't count.

That's why I'm asking you how it is measured. If it were in relative terms, then it is meaningless.

Exactly. The world can't more just if the question "how much more just is it?" All ordinal rankings are meaningless.

Dave condemns the US for helping Stalin consolidate power in the Soviet Union

Yep.

I don't suppose you'd be willing to expand on this premise, would you? Because I'd LOVE to hear it.

You're super good at threads. You should post here all the time.

condemns the US for assisting Afghanistan when the Soviet Union attempts to spread its fascism to them

We assisted Al Queda right into their country and those stupid Afghans didn't thank us once!

Al Qaeda moved to Afghanistan from Libya after the Saudis rejected Bin Laden's offer to defend the Islamic Holy Land from Saddam Hussein's army. You are probably thinking about the Afghan resistance, which was given Stinger Missiles to shoot down Soviet Helicopters during the Cold War. The Arab fighters that showed up at the time were funded out of Bin Laden's own deep pockets.

Yeah you're right. The US didn't round up all the best killers it could find in the region and pour them into the country with a bunch of money and training and if they did, that certainly had no part in establishing Al Qaeda.

condemns the US for doing nothing when a brutal theocracy came to power

Yeah, this makes sense.

So, what's your opinion on how we are dealing with Iran's brutal theocracy? That's right, we should be giving them money.

Well they're brown, so obviously we should be bombing them.

and thinks we owe Iran money for the damages done when their revolution established their own theocracy.

Don't forget about when they revolutioned away their own democracy too! Iran should be thanking us for freeing them from all that chaos.

Damned if we do, damned if we don't, right Dave?

Yeah, that makes sense.

[Pesto]

I work at a job where I sit in a chair I don't own, use a computer I don't own, and produce software that becomes the property of the company I work for. In exchange for this I'm given money a couple times a month.

By your definitions, am I being exploited?

Nope! Since you're being given money a couple times a month, and since you agreed to those terms that means you can't possibly be being exploited.

It's an honest and direct question. Please answer it honestly.

[MarcusAurelius]

I work at a job where I sit in a chair I don't own, use a computer I don't own, and produce software that becomes the property of the company I work for. In exchange for this I'm given money a couple times a month.

By your definitions, am I being exploited?

Nope! Since you're being given money a couple times a month, and since you agreed to those terms that means you can't possibly be being exploited.

It's an honest and direct question. Please answer it honestly.

holy shit he has answered it directly before, and everyone on the board laughed at him, and continues to berate him for his insane teen-angst pothead ramblings. of course he's going to dodge it or be sarcastic. let me go ahead and answer it for you.

Yes, you are being exploited, because your employer/manager/shareholder is making more money off of your labor than you are.

[Reagraham Lincool]

I work at a job where I sit in a chair I don't own, use a computer I don't own, and produce software that becomes the property of the company I work for. In exchange for this I'm given money a couple times a month.

By your definitions, am I being exploited?

Nope! Since you're being given money a couple times a month, and since you agreed to those terms that means you can't possibly be being exploited.

It's an honest and direct question. Please answer it honestly.

Oh but I am! Your accusation has taught me that such a position is so absurd on its face that it must be dismissed out of hand (that's why it can be hurled as an accusation). Again, you have changed my heart and mind through your superior reasoning and I thank you.

[Pesto]

via PM:

If you guys want to have a real conversation, I'm game, but I'm not going to do it where the peanut gallery can drop in and take a shit on the whole thing and I'm not going to do it if you're not going to reciprocate the courtesy of seriously considering what I have to say.

If you don't feel your ideas can stand up to public scrutiny, then they aren't worth my time.

[MarcusAurelius]

and the cycle continues. anarchist FAQ post comes next.

[Reagraham Lincool]

via PM:

If you guys want to have a real conversation, I'm game, but I'm not going to do it where the peanut gallery can drop in and take a shit on the whole thing and I'm not going to do it if you're not going to reciprocate the courtesy of seriously considering what I have to say.

If you don't feel your ideas can stand up to public scrutiny, then they aren't worth my time.

Well the best place to get honest public scrutiny of ideas is here on ST. You people are so intellectually honest. You really make it worth the time.

[MarcusAurelius]

hey look, the guy posting page after page of worthless sarcastic comments all week wants to be taken seriously!

[Reagraham Lincool]

hey look, the guy posting page after page of worthless sarcastic comments all week wants to be taken seriously!

You're doing a really good job of having me on ignore.

[Pesto]

hey look, the guy posting page after page of worthless sarcastic comments all week wants to be taken seriously!

Yeah, no shit.

[MarcusAurelius]

cue lesson on not understanding irony/sarcasm

[Reagraham Lincool]

hey look, the guy posting page after page of worthless sarcastic comments all week wants to be taken seriously!

Yeah, no shit.

If I weren't being sarcastic all the time, you'd definitely approach this discussion in a rational way!

[Reagraham Lincool]

Oh, and you know that's true because of how rational you all have been in the past.

[Uncle Sherm]

If the United States gave Iran reparation money today, what benefit will the world gain?

You mean besides the improvement in the level of justice?

How is the level of justice measured?

Well it better not be in relative terms. Then it doesn't count.

That's why I'm asking you how it is measured. If it were in relative terms, then it is meaningless.

Exactly. The world can't more just if the question "how much more just is it?" All ordinal rankings are meaningless.

Justice can't be held to an objective standard. That's why when you have 2 individuals seeking it in even the best managed societies, you still require the OPINION of a disinterested third party with the strength of government to enforce that opinion. No such third party exists on the world stage. Even the UN doesn't have the strength to enforce its opinion, hence the absurdity of the earlier comment that the US should have supported Iran's protests against the Taliban at the UN. You'll note that the UN's current protests against Iran's nuclear ambitions are going nowhere, as well.

Dave condemns the US for helping Stalin consolidate power in the Soviet Union

Yep.

I don't suppose you'd be willing to expand on this premise, would you? Because I'd LOVE to hear it.

You're super good at threads. You should post here all the time.

You should continue hiding your vaccuous intellect behind sarcasm when you can't back up your own assertions.

condemns the US for assisting Afghanistan when the Soviet Union attempts to spread its fascism to them

We assisted Al Queda right into their country and those stupid Afghans didn't thank us once!

Al Qaeda moved to Afghanistan from Libya after the Saudis rejected Bin Laden's offer to defend the Islamic Holy Land from Saddam Hussein's army. You are probably thinking about the Afghan resistance, which was given Stinger Missiles to shoot down Soviet Helicopters during the Cold War. The Arab fighters that showed up at the time were funded out of Bin Laden's own deep pockets.

Yeah you're right. The US didn't round up all the best killers it could find in the region and pour them into the country with a bunch of money and training and if they did, that certainly had no part in establishing Al Qaeda.

Who did the US send to Afghanistan?

condemns the US for doing nothing when a brutal theocracy came to power

Yeah, this makes sense.

So, what's your opinion on how we are dealing with Iran's brutal theocracy? That's right, we should be giving them money.

Well they're brown, so obviously we should be bombing them.

Actually, I think the orcs are considered "olive skinned".

[Reagraham Lincool]

If the United States gave Iran reparation money today, what benefit will the world gain?

You mean besides the improvement in the level of justice?

How is the level of justice measured?

Well it better not be in relative terms. Then it doesn't count.

That's why I'm asking you how it is measured. If it were in relative terms, then it is meaningless.

Exactly. The world can't more just if the question "how much more just is it?" All ordinal rankings are meaningless.

Justice can't be held to an objective standard. That's why when you have 2 individuals seeking it in even the best managed societies, you still require the OPINION of a disinterested third party with the strength of government to enforce that opinion.

Yep. If you're not strong enough to enforce your opinion about justice, then you can't categorize a situation as more or less just than another. That's logic!

No such third party exists on the world stage. Even the UN doesn't have the strength to enforce its opinion, hence the absurdity of the earlier comment that the US should have supported Iran's protests against the Taliban at the UN. You'll note that the UN's current protests against Iran's nuclear ambitions are going nowhere, as well.

Iran gave up the right to nuclear power OR the right to defend itself from other nuclear powers in the region the day they overthrew the Shah. That's justice!

Dave condemns the US for helping Stalin consolidate power in the Soviet Union

Yep.

I don't suppose you'd be willing to expand on this premise, would you? Because I'd LOVE to hear it.

You're super good at threads. You should post here all the time.

You should continue hiding your vaccuous intellect behind sarcasm when you can't back up your own assertions.

You're even better at spelling than you are at reading!

condemns the US for assisting Afghanistan when the Soviet Union attempts to spread its fascism to them

We assisted Al Queda right into their country and those stupid Afghans didn't thank us once!

Al Qaeda moved to Afghanistan from Libya after the Saudis rejected Bin Laden's offer to defend the Islamic Holy Land from Saddam Hussein's army. You are probably thinking about the Afghan resistance, which was given Stinger Missiles to shoot down Soviet Helicopters during the Cold War. The Arab fighters that showed up at the time were funded out of Bin Laden's own deep pockets.

Yeah you're right. The US didn't round up all the best killers it could find in the region and pour them into the country with a bunch of money and training and if they did, that certainly had no part in establishing Al Qaeda.

Who did the US send to Afghanistan?

Well I guess if you don't know, that means no one.

condemns the US for doing nothing when a brutal theocracy came to power

Yeah, this makes sense.

So, what's your opinion on how we are dealing with Iran's brutal theocracy? That's right, we should be giving them money.

Well they're brown, so obviously we should be bombing them.

Actually, I think the orcs are considered "olive skinned".

That's close enough though, right?

[Uncle Sherm]

If the United States gave Iran reparation money today, what benefit will the world gain?

You mean besides the improvement in the level of justice?

How is the level of justice measured?

Well it better not be in relative terms. Then it doesn't count.

That's why I'm asking you how it is measured. If it were in relative terms, then it is meaningless.

Exactly. The world can't more just if the question "how much more just is it?" All ordinal rankings are meaningless.

Justice can't be held to an objective standard. That's why when you have 2 individuals seeking it in even the best managed societies, you still require the OPINION of a disinterested third party with the strength of government to enforce that opinion.

Yep. If you're not strong enough to enforce your opinion about justice, then you can't categorize a situation as more or less just than another. That's logic!

You are the only person I know on this board that can so easily forget the point you were arguing for. You were speaking of paying restitution based on a perceived injustice. You can categorize the situation all you like, but if you want any sort of tangible effects to take place, some means of enforcement must exist. As long as the US and Iran (you) categorize the situation differently and no enforcement mechanism exists to determine which opinion will be enforced, the dispute is pointless.

No such third party exists on the world stage. Even the UN doesn't have the strength to enforce its opinion, hence the absurdity of the earlier comment that the US should have supported Iran's protests against the Taliban at the UN. You'll note that the UN's current protests against Iran's nuclear ambitions are going nowhere, as well.

Iran gave up the right to nuclear power OR the right to defend itself from other nuclear powers in the region the day they overthrew the Shah. That's justice!

The idea of nations having rights is also meaningless if those nations do not have the means of defending them. Iran can claim the right to nuclear weapons, and as long as nobody stops them, they will have that right. But if an outside party steps in and stops them, they do not have that right. No outside body exists to protect national rights without depending on the nations themselves to provide the means of enforcing them.

[Reagraham Lincool]

You are the only person I know on this board that can so easily forget the point you were arguing for. You were speaking of paying restitution based on a perceived injustice. You can categorize the situation all you like, but if you want any sort of tangible effects to take place, some means of enforcement must exist. As long as the US and Iran (you) categorize the situation differently and no enforcement mechanism exists to determine which opinion will be enforced, the dispute is pointless.

Yeah, that's how ethics works.

No such third party exists on the world stage. Even the UN doesn't have the strength to enforce its opinion, hence the absurdity of the earlier comment that the US should have supported Iran's protests against the Taliban at the UN. You'll note that the UN's current protests against Iran's nuclear ambitions are going nowhere, as well.

Iran gave up the right to nuclear power OR the right to defend itself from other nuclear powers in the region the day they overthrew the Shah. That's justice!

The idea of nations having rights is also meaningless if those nations do not have the means of defending them.

Yeah, that's how ethics works.

[Uncle Sherm]

You are the only person I know on this board that can so easily forget the point you were arguing for. You were speaking of paying restitution based on a perceived injustice. You can categorize the situation all you like, but if you want any sort of tangible effects to take place, some means of enforcement must exist. As long as the US and Iran (you) categorize the situation differently and no enforcement mechanism exists to determine which opinion will be enforced, the dispute is pointless.

Yeah, that's how ethics works.

Give it up, Dave. It isn't limited to ethics, it is any dispute. Without an enforcement mechanism, all you have is a difference of opinion. There is no objective ethical guideline without subjecting yourself to a higher authority.

If you won't believe me, ask Charlie Rangel.

[Reagraham Lincool]

You are the only person I know on this board that can so easily forget the point you were arguing for. You were speaking of paying restitution based on a perceived injustice. You can categorize the situation all you like, but if you want any sort of tangible effects to take place, some means of enforcement must exist. As long as the US and Iran (you) categorize the situation differently and no enforcement mechanism exists to determine which opinion will be enforced, the dispute is pointless.

Yeah, that's how ethics works.

Give it up, Dave. It isn't limited to ethics, it is any dispute. Without an enforcement mechanism, all you have is a difference of opinion. There is no objective ethical guideline.

Yeah, you're right. There's absolutely no rules to ethics whatsoever. Universality?!? Get the fuck out of here! We're America. We don't have to consider what our opinion would be if the situation were reversed. That's how ethics works!

[Uncle Sherm]

That's how your version of ethics works. Unless everyone involved here submits to your moral codes and tests, it is a difference of opinion. Face it Dave, there is no higher power on this earth that can enforce your ethical opinion and get the US to pay reparations to Iran for the injustice you believe has taken place.

For a guy that consistently trumpets the need for government enforcement of property rights in a society where most citizens willingly accept them, you sure have a funny idea of how governments with different cultures and points of view in disputes should behave.

[Reagraham Lincool]

That's how your version of ethics works.

Yeah you're right. It's perfectly reasonable for us to expect people to accept something we would not accept in their position. That makes a lot of sense and I'm sure you'll find many people who will accept that as a reasonable ethical standard. You've done a great service for this conversation and I thank you.

[Uncle Sherm]

That's how your version of ethics works.

Yeah you're right. It's perfectly reasonable for us to expect people to accept something we would not accept in their position.

You do realize that is exactly what you are doing right now, right? It is pretty much what you do every time you bring morality into the conversation. You put forth your own moral code as the standard that all others should accept and then decry their immorality. It is pretty reasonable to argue in favor of your own moral code, but it sort of blows up in your face when you demand people accept the moral codes of others.

[Reagraham Lincool]

That's how your version of ethics works.

Yeah you're right. It's perfectly reasonable for us to expect people to accept something we would not accept in their position.

You do realize that is exactly what you are doing right now, right?

Yeah, that makes sense.

[Uncle Sherm]

Dave: The US should pay reparations to Iran for overthrowing its democracy!

USA: What we did was just and no reparations are necessary

Dave: You need to see their side of the issue!

USA: You need to see our side of the issue.

Dave: NO I DON'T!!









Iran: Have we even asked for reparations?

[Reagraham Lincool]

Dave: The US should pay reparations to Iran for overthrowing its democracy!

USA: What we did was just and no reparations are necessary

Dave: You need to see their side of the issue!

USA: You need to see our side of the issue.

Dave: NO I DON'T!!

What a rational and honest characterization of my position! You're like some kind of Vulcan.