Letter from michael Moore, April 7 (1 Viewer)

[egg_]

Cpt A
I wasn't being 'nice', or hinting that scientists should do something better with their time, twas just an idea I had - if defence was more effective than attack, then the world would be a completely different place because it would be impossible to force anyone to do anything. A good thought experiment or idea for a short story or something, that's all

As for your guns are good theory, there's a flaw in your argument - without the existence of tools to make the use of force easier (e.g. guns, bombs, etc), coercive political systems would find it much harder to exist. As well as making revolution easier, guns make oppression easier - if anything they tip the balance towards more repression rather than more freedom

 

[kstop]

Re: egg and goon race

Originally posted by captain anomie
I know "no-war" people hate it when its said aloud, thats why I’m saying it - Conflict, Competetiveness, One-upmanship, Moral rewards and many other things that enable the political systems to operate a War are part of what makes us human.

I don't think so. Those traits evolved in a tribal environment. They have to be evoked and manipulated to work on a countrywide scale. Modern war, if anything, represents a perversion of competitiveness, as it basically involves trying to take something by force that you can't barter for, and destroying most of it in the process. It has become a negative-sum game. War is no longer politics by another means, nor is it a good way of boosting one's economy. The current situation is an example of what happens when politics is ignored.

These are the same traits that make people march against war. In fear humans always adopt a gang/mob mentality. These are not elements supplied by the government. These are inbuilt parts of the human condition.

Like I said, they may be inherent, but they have to be tweaked. And a lot more effort has gone into tweaking the pro-war camp than the anti-war camp.

If you are deprived of food and water for four days your mind will tell you that it is worthwhile to kill another human for food.

Which is relevant how?

I think that if you look to IRAQ and see that without the invasion, the secrets of the torture chambers and general system of governing would have remained in place.

The thing is, it wasn't a secret. And the decade-long siege imposed by sanctions only made the regime more brutal, not to mention causing a rise in fundamentalism that's going to reap a bloody harvest now that said regime has been removed.

A proper political solution would have used sanctions as a tool to get UN peacekeeping troops in place, to finish weapons inspections 5 years ago, and to bring about a gradual dissolution of the regime that left the country intact. (Or even split along logical lines.) It is possible. The Soviet Union fell without WW3, South Africa gave up apartheid without being nuked.

Instead, Iraq has effectively been destroyed. over a million people have died, and more will die as the country descends into anarchy. Eventually the pretense of establishing democracy will be abandoned and a new fat man in a mustache will take over. The region will be on edge for decades, the Kurds will once again be screwed, and the only winners will be the US corporations that rebuild a privatised and emasculated nation.

what you have to realise that sometimes war is necessary, because of the abovementioned survival and desporation instincts.

You could substitute rape or murder for war in the above statement without compromising your logic. Doesn't that give you pause?

Less than 100 years ago in this country people were mistreated and a two tier society existed. The people used guns to try to change this situation. Do you know another way it could have been done?

Comparing a guerrilla war fought against a numerically and technologically superior occupying force to a combination blitzkrieg and carpet bombing of a weakened country is a bit thick, if you ask me.

 

[ann post]

Told ya's I'd hang for that, but I thought it had potential...Anyways, I find this one a bit interesting so I'm gonna stick to my guns (cringe).

"Actually my new friend from Donegal, those are the ego-based things that make us animals. It's our humanity that demands we transcend the ego and seek a higher level of existence"

I dont entirely agree with this, stunning bloke, ego can be identified as the fundamental drive behind a persons actions, good or bad. Our western Humanity/civilisation is essentially a form of ego conditioning of an animal from birth in such a way that it maintains the functions of society, but the factors that determine how well it works is dependant on the individual as well as the state of the society its born in. In reality this is a slow process, and we still have to accept our animalistic impulses as well as our moral ones. As for a higher level of existence - to the best of my knowledge people who reach these things usually live in little huts and wear very little clothing, and are largely self sufficient and peaceful. Could I suggest (from a highly uneducated point of view as far as higher existence goes) that they have removed convenience from their life?*

"..guns are good theory, there's a flaw in your argument"

there are lots of flaws in my argument, it is biased in many ways, i just expanded on a bold statement in as many ways as I could to see if there was any logic to be found. About 10 mins after I posted I realised that I should have just said "you cant make an ommlette without breaking a few eggs"

"country descends into anarchy"

Em, the correct term is "Anomie", punks ruined "anarchy" years ago.

"Comparing a guerrilla war fought against a numerically and technologically superior occupying force to a combination blitzkrieg and carpet bombing of a weakened country is a bit thick, if you ask me"

all true - but in the context of the discussion i was trying to draw a comparison of a time when guns were justified by a mass of people, as in the current context they are not.

"You could substitute rape or murder for war in the above statement without compromising your logic. Doesn't that give you pause?"

Please expand this one a bit, I dont get it.

"if anything they tip the balance towards more repression rather than more freedom"

- I wonder about this, I mean an agressor is only as hard as the next guy he meets, so without weapons he gets to be in charge untill somone more aggressive guy comes along. I'm not saying I'm right on this one, I'm just trying to explore what makes it tick -Considering the existence of the weapon enables a dumb as fuck frat boy or a colourblind midget to overthrow a facist regime thingy - Discuss etc.



*I think its turning into the anti-progress party again (invented in Donegal by me and a mate at work to stop such evils as traffic lights).

 

[egg_]

There's a lot of threads in your argument going on here, Cpt A.

Wanna pick up on just the guns=good thing:

Considering the existence of the weapon enables a dumb as fuck frat boy or a colourblind midget to overthrow a facist regime thingy

I think, similar to my 'invincibilty suit', that this is an idea that might make a good short story, but it doesn't really apply in real life. A large-scale 'fascist regime thingy' couldn't really exist unless the people running it themselves had guns ... and therefore it couldn't be overthrown by a colourblind midget just cos he had a gun. The reality is that it's the powerful that have the best access to whatever weapons are available (because power and wealth go hand in hand) - therefore the existence of any sort of weapon (including quick fists and steel-capped boots) favours the powerful rather than the powerless.

p.s. 'Anarchy' literally just means 'no rulers'. It doesn't mean chaos or 'the war of all against all' which it is often taken to mean.

 

[kstop]

Originally posted by captain anomie
Our western Humanity/civilisation is essentially a form of ego conditioning of an animal from birth in such a way that it maintains the functions of society, but the factors that determine how well it works is dependant on the individual as well as the state of the society its born in. In reality this is a slow process, and we still have to accept our animalistic impulses as well as our moral ones.

The flaw with this is that we're a social animal, who evolved to live in multi-generational family groups. Altruism and support of weaker (older, younger) people is therefore as much a part of our animalistic impulses as anything else.

Also, no wild animal hunts more than it needs to, or forages until it explodes. Only ants and humans go to war, and ant colonies have the excuse that they're effectively acting as a single organism.

Rapacious greed and the urge to conquer are new inventions (on an evolutionary timescale), firmly seated in the intellect. Even if ants do go to war, they don't do it for ideological reasons. They do it to remove a nearby competitor for scarce resources. There are no crusades in nature, no pogroms, no purges. These are all human inventions, and both a consequence and a failing of our intelligence. Our more violent atavistic urges may be excited by war, but cold calculated plans use those urges to their own ends.

As for a higher level of existence - to the best of my knowledge people who reach these things usually live in little huts and wear very little clothing,

Buddha started off as a prince.
(I'm just being facetious, you don't need religion of any stripe to show that war is inherently wrong.)

"country descends into anarchy"

Em, the correct term is "Anomie", punks ruined "anarchy" years ago.


No it's not. If you're going to use obscure terms, look them up first. Don't just grab whatever pops out of the thesaurus.

-Considering the existence of the weapon enables a dumb as fuck frat boy or a colourblind midget to overthrow a facist regime thingy - Discuss etc.

Almost every man in Iraq was armed, most with AK-47s, so why did numerous attempts at revolution fail? Could it be because there's always a bigger gun? Should we all buy main battle tanks and nuclear warheads, just in case?

 

[ann post]

EGG: I think, similar to my 'invincibilty suit', that this is an idea that might make a good short story......

CAPT A: Its a pity the midget cant sort it out, but your right in saying that this thread is spiraling deeper into fiction. I'm definitley in fiction territory with the pro-gun-anti-progress thing. H.G. Wells books are very often based on a few threads of society which are then expanded over a long term or train of exaggeration. The results were very often freakishly prophetic. I'm not saying this is a prophetic thread, I just read that lastnight and thought it might fit in somewhere.

EGG: p.s. 'Anarchy' literally just means 'no rulers'. It doesn't mean chaos or 'the war of all against all' which it is often taken to mean.

CAPT A: I read anarchy and thought anomie was a better discription for Iraq. Thats exactly what I meant by saying punks ruined it, as anarchy is concept not unlike your invincible suit, that suggests that peaceful functioning is a legitimate goal. Punks made everybody think that you had to "destroy". (see sex pistols).

****

CAPT A:Our western Humanity/civilisation is essentially a form of ego conditioning of an animal from birth in such a way that it maintains the functions of society, but the factors that determine how well it works is dependant on the individual as well as the state of the society its born in. In reality this is a slow process, and we still have to accept our animalistic impulses as well as our moral ones.

KSTOP: The flaw with this is that we're a social animal, who evolved to live in multi-generational family groups. Altruism and support of weaker (older, younger) people is therefore as much a part of our animalistic impulses as anything else.

CAPT A: I dont see it as a flaw, more another aspect of the human condition. Mr. Bush is a lot more aware of this than the antiwar folk have been in his exploitation of religion and family values to get the machine on the road. You are in essence agreeing with me in that animalistic values are still very relevant. I would also add, in relevance to what stunning said earlier about competetiveness etc, that MHO says that capitolism supports these things that I mentioned. If you were to tame your ego in this climate you would probably sway towards a possibly destitute/civil service type life.

KSTOP: Also, no wild animal hunts ....Rapacious greed and the urge to conquer are new inventions (on an evolutionary timescale), firmly seated in the intellect.....their own ends.

CAPT A: I agree with all you said about ants/war/crusades/evil plans. I'm just going to keep on general theme I've been on because I find most of this feedback quite interesting. The above things are part of whats kept the human race so high in the food chain for so long.

KSTOP: "No it's not. If you're going to use obscure terms, look them up first. Don't just grab whatever pops out of the thesaurus."

CAPT A: Oh jesus, I really have to put the buck down on that, I'll hand you over to Mr Durkheim. This is a source I frequently resort to in my quest for a perfect state of anomie. If you search anomie on the web this is the first thing you'll find. I first came across the concept in an excellent book by Nancy Sheper-Hughes called "saints, scholars and skitzophrenics" (forgive spelling) Which detailed the anthropology of western small town Ireland. Its like a survival guide for stick dwellers. - I'll add that over the past 30 odd years, Donegal has had the some of the highest figures in the anomie charts in europe. i.e. I didnt just find it in the thesaurus.

DURKHeiM: Emile Durkheim, a French sociologist, introduced the concept of anomie in his book The Division of Labour in Society, published in 1893. He used anomie to describe a condition of deregulation that was occurring in society. This meant that rules on how people ought to behave with each other were breaking down and thus people did not know what to expect from one another. Anomie, simply defined, is a state where norms (expectations on behaviours) are confused, unclear or not present. It is normlessness, Durkheim felt, that led to deviant behaviour. In 1897, Durkheim used the term again in his study on Suicide, referring to a morally deregulated condition. Durkheim was preoccupied with the effects of social change. He best illustrated his concept of anomie not in a discussion of crime but of suicide.

In The Division of Labour in Society, Durkheim proposed two concepts. First, that societies evolved from a simple, non-specialised form, called mechanical, toward a highly complex, specialised form, called organic. In the former society people behave and think alike and more or less perform the same work tasks and have the same group-oriented goals. When societies become more complex, or organic, work also becomes more complex. In this society, people are no longer tied to one another and social bonds are impersonal.

Anomie thus refers to a breakdown of social norms and it a condition where norms no longer control the activities of members in society. Individuals cannot find their place in society without clear rules to help guide them. Changing conditions as well as adjustment of life leads to dissatisfaction, conflict, and deviance. He observed that social periods of disruption (economic depression, for instance) brought about greater anomie and higher rates of crime, suicide, and deviance.

Durkheim felt that sudden change caused a state of anomie. The system breaks down, either during a great prosperity or a great depression, anomie is the same result.

CAPT A: Is that not the current state of Iraq????

CApt A: If you are deprived of food and water for four days your mind will tell you that it is worthwhile to kill another human for food.

KSTOP: Which is relevant how?

CAPT A: I thought it would be a way to show that both you and I are potential killers, guns or no guns.

KSTOP: Almost every man in Iraq was armed, most with AK-47s, so why did numerous attempts at revolution fail? Could it be because there's always a bigger gun? Should we all buy main battle tanks and nuclear warheads, just in case?

CAPT A: Yes. We live in aworld where it is necessary for the supposed "moral Right" to arm themselves to the teeth in order to promote their politics. Thats non fiction unfortunatley. It all started with that monkey in 2001.....

 

[kstop]

Originally posted by captain anomie

KSTOP: The flaw with this is that we're a social animal, who evolved to live in multi-generational family groups. Altruism and support of weaker (older, younger) people is therefore as much a part of our animalistic impulses as anything else.

CAPT A: I dont see it as a flaw, more another aspect of the human condition.

No, I meant the flaw in your reasoning. You seem to think that our animalistic impulses are violent, but my point is that in general, they're not. Survival as a weak fleshy biped required cooperation, not just competition. War is essentially human, and therefore has much more to do with intelligence than primal urges.

competetiveness etc, that MHO says that capitolism supports these things that I mentioned.

Capitalism is not a moral system, it's an economic one. If you apply it to morality you end up with an unholy mess. Same goes for Darwinism. It's biology, not morality.

If you were to tame your ego in this climate you would probably sway towards a possibly destitute/civil service type life.

You could always be egotistical about living on as little as possible. (I, for example, am a smug bastard about never having owned a car.)

KSTOP: Almost every man in Iraq was armed, most with AK-47s, so why did numerous attempts at revolution fail? Could it be because there's always a bigger gun? Should we all buy main battle tanks and nuclear warheads, just in case?

CAPT A: Yes.

So how do we counter the inevitable ABMs and helicopter gunships? Satellite killers? Orbital missile platforms? Isn't all of this a bit wasteful?

Thats non fiction unfortunatley. It all started with that monkey in 2001.....

Just so you know, that was a guy in a suit.

 

[egg_]

I think I get your thinking now, Cpt A ...

There will always be bad guys who won't listen to reason so we'll have to fight them and it'll be easier to defeat them if we have guns therefore guns=good.

Like I said it doesn't really hold water logically cos the baddies are at least as likely to have guns as the goodies

Another observation I might make is:
Once you accept violence as a valid way of achieving your goals you are on very dodgy moral ground, because you are in a way implicitly accepting the premise that might makes right. If nobody used force for anything, then the world would be a much better place ... but then how to deal with the obvious baddies, like Hitler? I don't know, though it's worth keeping in mind that Hitler, like extremists everywhere, would very likely not have come to power if the people who supported him (i.e. Germans) weren't being shat on most egregiously ... in other words, if they weren't already the victims of a might=right policy

 

[vertrauen]

re michael moore: i think it's good what he's doing, in that he's getting a view across to a traditionally conservative centrist american population, but there are a couple of negative aspects of this. his style of commentary (especially in 'stupid white men') is essentially tabloid journalism, and being such allows itself open to criticism. so, alot of what he says can be easily argued against, and the people who do take the easy target (ie, michael moore) and therefore imply that, in showing how michael moore has distorted the facts (or just been completely ignorant about matters beyond the basic), they have done the same to the left in general. take kevin myers in the irish times sometime this week. he attacks michael moore (concentrating on his embarrasingly simple reflection on how the north can sort out its problems) and implies that noam chomsky etc are part of the same brand of leftist politics. of course, he doesn't criticise noam chomsky (as that would be harder to do). i don't know, that's my 2c's anyway

 

[egg_]

Originally posted by vertrauen
so, alot of what he says can be easily argued against, and the people who do take the easy target (ie, michael moore) and therefore imply that, in showing how michael moore has distorted the facts (or just been completely ignorant about matters beyond the basic), they have done the same to the left in general. take kevin myers in the irish times sometime this week.

Kevin Myers is an insufferable baboon

Even in Moore didn't exist, this stlye of argument forms the basis of everything Myers (and his ilk) says - e.g. Stalin was a 'leftist', Stalin was bad, therefore leftists are bad. I don't see how he can continue to present this sort of nonsense as reasoned debate and not be the subject of widespread ridicule. His other favourite technique is to say 'Leftists/enviros/feminists think X, but X is obviously ridiculous, therefore leftists/enviros/feminists are lunatics' ... but X is something he's made up out of his own head. It's very frustrating

Here's a thing - are there any right-wingers out there reading this? I always thought growing up of right-wingers as, well, baddies. Left-wingers are defined by being in favour of equality ... so does that mean 'rightists' are against equality? Are there any rightists out there? Billy? What do ye stand for? And what is it about what I stand for (equality) that ye're so opposed to?

 

[RED(tape)MENACE]

I met my first real-life American Republican the other day. I had no idea these people actually existed - kinda like the whole Santa thing. I was kinda speechless - that any well-educated human being who can hold those kind of views is amazing to me.

 

[kstop]

Originally posted by GrRrrrR
I met my first real-life American Republican the other day. I had no idea these people actually existed - kinda like the whole Santa thing. I was kinda speechless - that any well-educated human being who can hold those kind of views is amazing to me.

I met a Marine sargeant in a fetish club in San Francisco once. He was in drag and makeup (his foundation was clumped in his ginger beard). He told me that "we went into Kuwait to defend democracy", and didn't really seem to get it when I pointed out that it was effectively a monarchy.

 

[Janitor Jaxin]

I don't get it either.

 

[vertrauen]

Originally posted by egg_
I don't see how he can continue to present this sort of nonsense as reasoned debate

well, probably because he's a buffoon (like you said). as for not being ridiculed, well, i think he is to a large extent. most of his 'arguments' are disputed, and his counter-arguments tend towards labelling people with insults etc. very clever. also: have you read any of his novels? i read a bit of one of his in waterstones once, and it was awful awful stuff. it is interesting that he can only mention noam chomsky, and not actually debate what he's said. i guess it would be a gross uneven match of intellects.

i was also wondering whether there are any right wing people here at all. i remember reading the post about the far-right people viewing the board, and labelling everyone here a commie-pinkie, and to a certain extent, they're right i guess. maybe that's why the politics board here tends not to go into debate. it's more a case of: someone states point, two people agree, and it's left at that.

isn't the traditional argument against stalin = left, therefore left = bad countered by the claim that stalin wasn't really a communist? or something along those lines.

 

[steve albino]

Closest thing to a funny/interesting right leaning writer, CJ O' Rourke (sure, it's lowest common denominator off the rack, but hey...)

Him and his buddy in a car and they pass a demonstration by "peace loving hippy anarchist performance art types" when his buddy turns to him and says
"Damn, why is it always these types who are out demonstrating, why is it never us?"
O' Rourke thinks for a second and says:
"Because we have jobs..."

 

[egg_]

The world would be a better place if basic logic was taught in schools

It is
... though I think a more effective argument would be: the fact that a very bad man once had some left-wing beliefs does not mean that all left-wing beliefs are very bad.

The world would be a better place if basic logic was taught in schools

 

[dudley]

Originally posted by egg_


The world would be a better place if basic logic was taught in schools

the world would be a better place if everyone wasn't a shithead






hope no-one noticed that......

 

[spiritualtramp]

Originally posted by egg_

... though I think a more effective argument would be: the fact that a very bad man once had some left-wing beliefs does not mean that all left-wing beliefs are very bad.

agreed .
could the same not be said about right wingers as well though ?

 

[snakybus]

the world would be a better place if the yanks just learnt to play proper football like the rest of us

hey check it out I sound like a pom

 

[ann post]

Originally posted by vertrauen

Actually , i think I'll retract that one..