“In the region there is of course a country such as Iran – a great country, a great people and a great civilization which is respected and which plays a stabilizing role in the region,”
And your enemies in France.
“In the region there is of course a country such as Iran – a great country, a great people and a great civilization which is respected and which plays a stabilizing role in the region,”
And your enemies in France.
I think, middleton, that as someone in your twenties, you still have a lot to learn. I hope you acknowledge that – it would be dreadful for your mind to ‘stop dead’ so early in life.
No, morality is not black and white. Nothing ‘real’ is black and white; only mechanical entities are black and white. Reality is complex; it isn’t simple, and reality can’t be slotted into neat compartments, such as good and evil. They tend to get a bit muddled – and that’s why humans also have the capacity for reason – to figure things out.
No, you are quite wrong in asserting that Islamic fascism was predicatable. The fact that you now, an armchair observer, assert that it was predictable, unfortunately, doesn’t make it so. Fundamentalism, by the way, is not the same as fascism.
Beirut happened’ I’m not sure whether you refer to the hostages or the bombing of military barracks. This was not about Islamic fascism; it was assumed that this had to do with ME rivalries, and with hostility to Israel.
You still haven’t provided any evidence that Islamic fascism was predictable. Just saying so, won’t make it so! That’s a tactic called Kipling’s Just So Stories!
I certainly hope that Congress, or any gov’t body, only debates what it knows, and doesn’t debate about what it doesn’t know. I’d also suggest that you don’t imply what you don’t know, for certain, exists. You are implying that ‘secrets are kept’ from Congress and they may not know the whole situation. That might be the case; it has certainly happened in every country in the world including Canada, but, don’t set up conspiracy theories as ‘universal’.
Actually, no, I don’t think that important decisions are kept secret to ensure that there is no public debate. I’d suggest you read Aristotle’s Politics, for his views on the capacity of the ‘mass’ to reason and debate. Sometimes, public debate isn’t advisable, for the public doesn’t know all the facts; not all the facts can be released; the public doesn’t know the background of the situation – which might require reading through tomes and tomes of material. Do you think that important decisions should be based on ignorance and superficial judgments?
And above all, read Popper’s ‘The Open Society and Its Enemies’. If you don’t read another book on politics for several years – that book alone, will provide you with an analytic structure that will greatly benefit you.
I’m impressed by the leeway Middleton’s been allowed by the rational and engaged posters at sda. The fine arguments given to refute his (I think it’s his not her) very tired, one note ditty have been repeated again and again and ignored again and again. E.g., NO ONE here has ever suggested black and white morality. But Middleton keeps hitting us and the US–thanks, Karl and Ham, for your analysis–over the head with an argument we’re NOT making.
I discern a true lack of empathy here on Middleton’s part: He appears to have no notion of the concept of altruism. That such an attribute would drive any portion of a nation’s actions seems to be entirely outside his ability to imagine. (Think the tsunami: Even though many of the victims were Muslim, some of whom might later attack their countries, both the US and Australian militaries were among the first–if not the first–to respond, with massive amounts of aid. NB: The UN, with its agents staying at the best hotels, were latecomers, just like the Canadians, whose assistance was secondary. Middleton, your rigid and rabid anti-Americanism is most unbecoming.)
In my over 30 years in the classroom, I’ve noticed a precipitous decline–like a nose dive–in civilized and courteous behaviour in classrooms, in the hall, and on the yard. Altruism–“regard for others as a principle of action”, Canadian Oxford Dictionary–has virtually disappeared. So has accountability. E.g., After an art period, with scraps of paper all over the floor and tables, glue sticks, minus their caps, and scissors all over the place: “We need to clean up the classroom. It looks like a bomb’s gone off.” (25 years ago my students completed similar projects with very little mess.) Response from just about every student: “IT WASN’T ME!” Right . . . (Then I close the door and beat the . . . whoops! . . . make them ALL tidy up before ANYONE’S allowed to leave. Only by making myself their foil and giving an ultimatum, do the kids decide it’s a good idea to work as a team to get the job done. Very tiring work.)
I actually feel sorry for Middleton. He’s obviously been the victim of political propaganda, which is “de rigeur” in the Canadian education system. He’s also, quite obviously, experienced so little altruism–or none: it’s in VERY short supply these days–that he either doesn’t know what it is or can’t recognize it when he sees it. Very sad. Really.
In people like Middleton, minus a major turn around in the way this society works–being rid of the cheating Liberals is a good first step–behold the future citizens of Canada. Behold and weep.
“After having heard countless cries of “death to Israel”, “vive le Hezbollah””
In France? No. In Canada, Montreal.
The Muslim Islamist terrorists physically attack a Jew in Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
What is next? Homicide bombing in Canada?
What is to be done? …-
Hezbollah Attacks Jews. In Canada. Shades of Nazi Germany?
Story and video of the anti-Semitic violence here.
Maybe leftists want to be slaves to Muslims? Maybe they want to wipe Muslim mens’ asses? Maybe they want to be fully obedient sex slaves? What do leftists want with respect to them and Islam? I ask this as leftists are very obviously so fond of Islamofascism no matter what they hear, see or experience in the way of the hatred and horrors stemming therefrom…
Is the left even paying any attention whatsoever, or are they so blinded by their prejudice and hatred of Israel that they don’t notice any anti-Semitism until it’s uttered in a fit of drunken insanity by a very repentant, desirous of being cured of his mental illness, Mel Gibson? Is anti-Semitism not a bad thing, however, when Muslims and leftists are screaming and practicing it?
Where’s the leftist protests against anti-Semitism? Why do we only see leftist protests that are anti-Semitic?! How about links to leftist protests in the streets of Canada and America against anti-Semitism to contrast with the ones that are anti-Semitic? Betcha there aren’t any links, as I doubt most leftists oppose anti-Semitism. Who can blame me? I call ’em as I see ’em happening in the real world..
http://thecanadiansentinel.blogspot.com/
ET,
I have no intention of stoppind dead right now. Got a long long way to go as far as learning is concerned. I do have a knack for going against the trend – but thats mostly because I enjoy playing Devil’s Advocate. Its a whole lot more fun getting angry reactions though I have to admit, I could do a hell of a lot better in making my arguments concise and straightforward. But considering that they re fairly extempore, I think I m doing a reasonable job.
My criticism of the US within a moral framework was, as I noted in one of my posts earlier, based on the assumption that the US considers itself to be on a moral higher ground. The legitimacy of my criticism is based on the fact that the US not I, has imposed the moral framework on itself.
I ll check out Poppers book. I ve read Aristotles Politics at least twice thus far albeit within the context of very specific courses. Nonetheless, thanks for keeping the debate civil, minus a couple of namecalling events.
Lookout,
Keep weeping.
Well, I ve lost the appetite to debate on this subject anymore, mostly because I have more pressing commitments at hand. One of them is a meeting with a very important Canadian politician on Canadian Foreign Policy in a little over a week.
In the event that Kate reads this, I hope she might consider starting a thread on this topic. Its, as always, fairly vague. Basically the presentation needs to draw out key areas for Canaadian Foreign Policy and perhaps suggest a few policies that might guide it in the future. Basically, how do you see Canada’s role. This board has a number of intelligent opinionated people who reflect the conservative mindset and I have a number of friends who reflect the Liberal mindset.
I ll be posting an email address at which you can email me your thoughts. I m sorry I m being a bit vague right now, I ll throw up some specific topics later on in this thread. I could really use your opinions, should you feel inclined to voice them.
lookout – yes, I agree with your conclusion about many students. As a teacher, I’ve noticed the same sense of entitlement and expectation of results with no work.
But I was fortunate in my classes, that the students knew beforehand that if they selected any of my courses, it meant that they had to work, that they knew I wasn’t interested in their ungrounded and unsubstantiated ‘coffee shop opinions’ but required specific data to support their conclusions – and logical arguments. Students who took my courses told me that they did so, because they actually learned something. We actually had a lot of fun.
Someone like middleton possibly hasn’t been exposed to that kind of framework, but I don’t in the least think that he’s a ‘lost cause’.
At the moment, his error is that he’s beginning from his conclusions, rather than ending with his conclusions.
His conclusions are that the US self-defines itself as moral; middleton claims it isn’t. But, beginning with this conclusion rather than first providing the evidence – means that it’s an opinion rather than a fact.
Same with his other assertions. He begins with his conclusion, rather than with his facts – and doesn’t provide the facts to prove his conclusion.
But, I think he’s got the brains to do a lot more. Many students of his age aren’t even interested in the issues. He is. Hopefully, he’ll also escape from the brainwashing he’s been subjected to by our educational system.
Thanks for your comments, ET. Thoughtful and very charitable.
Middleton, your last two posts sound very encouraging. (Though I don’t think being anti-American goes against the trend at all: It’s rather conformist in Canada.) I think ET’s suggestions would be very helpful to you re stating a thesis and then providing facts to prove it in a concise, straightforward way. Yes, that you’re even interested in government policy is a good sign, as is the fact that you’re interested in gathering a wide range of opinions: That rarely happens in “official” Canada. Good luck with your latest initiative.
Middleton,
thanks for the lesson. You are without a doubt THE best poster this site has seen in awhile, as you do not take either a left or right stance, just state facts. Once again, thanks.
“I have a number of friends who reflect the Liberal mindset”
And none of them know jack squat of morals or right and wrong either.
I read middletons moral relativist comments and I see psycopath with a vocab.
Good luck advising Liberals on foreign policy, you’ve earned your stripes.
Excuse me – but I am forced once again to remind you folks that this is not a forum. If you’ve responded more than three times on a thread, it’s time to take your debate elsewhere.
Oh my…Middleton – I’ve been a little too busy to post recently, but some things are not wise to ignore regardless of the press of other concerns. You (say you) have argued “that morality is not of consequence in the international system, because there is no set of good and evil.” Your premise is wrong – indeed, it is immoral. At the least, your understanding of morality has not been properly communicated, and at worst your concept of morality is relativistic and hence inoperable except as a coercive device. Present your moral axioms, please.
As to a practical response, I shan’t offer a fable this time, not even a case study – just a logical critique of your dominant theme:
You imply that the USA advances its national self-interest and clothes its actions in moral rhetoric. This may be (rarely/sometimes/often) true, but…you have become ensnared in a false dilemma. The fact that this does occur does not negate the other options. These are that the action is moral AND in its self-interest, or that the action is moral but NOT in its self-interest. Asserting that morals play no part between persons when they act as representatives of their state is not a logically permitted option (positing morality).
ET – I diffidently correct your assertion that “[m]orality is not black and white, but follows a ‘Likert Scale’ akin to ‘greatest good, less great good, neutral, less bad, greatest bad’.” This is untrue: morality is a polarity, an antithesis, not a continuum. (Proof: Posit the contrary…)You are confusing morality with consequence (as in choices yielding unfortunate, unpleasant, or distressing results).
Apologies Kate. Just one last post – its aimed at taking the discussion elsewhere.
I ve managed to round up quite a few views, generally left leaning and I would be honored if you could provide your views. They could range from full fledged opinions, to just one line emails telling me which area to focus on. We ve got the basics going –
Redefining Canada’s role post Sept 11th,
Strategies towards BRICs – Brazil Russia India China (Emerging Markets)/ Global trade in general
Terrorism (surprise surprise)
Responsibility to Protect
UN Reform
And always looking to add more. Any thoughts would be really helpful. My regular email is bouncing emails from certain email addresses, so I ve had to set up a new one – sirfredmiddleton@yahoo.ca. Feel free to voice your views – and I ll do my best to work them in. I would feel really priviliged if you could share your views, even if you think I m a “psycopath with a vocab”. The final copy will be vetted by colleagues who lean both to the left and right – we re trying to keep this balanced.
No, Henry, I’ll stand by my definition of morality. After all, morality is intimately linked to consequences. There is no pure good or pure bad scale. Is it always wrong to lie? Is it always right to define people as equal?
Eg. If I do this action, then, will A-person suffer somewhat, while B-person will benefit somewhat. These are the consequences of my action, and I will have to decide whether or not to do this action, in which there are two contrary consequences. I’ll have to evaluate the consequences.
Kate, I’ll beg your indulgence for one more short post.
To Henry and ET, I contend that both of you are slightly off the mark. ET contends that morals are not black and white. I agree with Henry that morality is “… a polarity, an antithesis, not a continuum…”
However, Henry, I disagree that ET is confusing morality with consequence. I think the word we are looking for here is ethics.
Ethics are informed by morality, and concerned with consequences. Actions are never entirely moral. But they may be ethical, which (in my view) means making the best choice, with the best consequence, even though aspects of the whole picture will usually (always?) suck. “The lesser of two evils” and all that.
what a bunch of bullshit.
Ethics, morality, are a mater of right and wrong.
We all know the difference, no matter what the “nuances” might be.
Beware of Middleton, this is the internet, he is a polished typist but his fundamental philosophy is deeply flawed by anti-American bigotry and hard-left amorality. His request for input is most likely a prank on a lot of people here who might spend a lot of time and energy submitting material to him.
aintgotnobody: Good point. I’d already decided there’s NO WAY I’d send my opinions to Middleton with any identifying information about myself, e.g., my email address.