"You didn't have to. By bringing up the US's moral quality when it isn't at issue"
You're the one implicitly disputing the notion of moral relativism by separating groups into the "just" and the "unjust." In doing so you implicitly brought up the US's moral quality, as well as that of Iran, and by extension all other nations.
""the just" can refer to those in pursuit of justice; this isn't some "cast the first stone" business"
You seem to have a very clear understanding of exactly what constitutes the "pursuit of justice", therefore you must have a very clear notion of constitutes "justice", I would be very grateful if you'd supply me with your definition of justice.
"you're derailing the discussion."
No I'm not, I'm broadening the discussion to highlight its inadequacy.
"So a Psychopath"
Please provide me with the reasoning and evidence upon which you based your labeling him a 'psychopath'.
" does not respects Human rights "
Although I tend to agree with this view I doubt you or I have enough of an understanding of the new Egyptian constitution to make such an assertion.
" but ignores opinions of other countries"
And which ones would those be?
"is somehow better that dictator forced by other countries to respect human rights ?"
Again, based on my knowledge of Hosni Mubarak term in office I am not aware he was in any way forced to respect human rights, quite the opposite in fact, the US used Egypt as an extra judicial dungeon within they could do all sorts of unspeakable things (that have never been publicized) to (in many cases) innocent Muslims. He also systematically repressed his own populations legitimate interests and desires.
He was largely in the pocket of the US, and this is no accident, historically Egypt was always the greatest power in the middle east, the US and Israel have long known that to neutralize Egypt would effectively neutralize any serious threat from the Arab world.
Given the fact that he won't be subservient to foreign interests, I would actually call that progress.
"Western society has gotten progressively more accepting of vulgarity ever since a mob of post-modernists decided we were too "repressed." We'll embrace anything if we're told it'll help us shed our Jude-Christian heritage."
Every age beleives the one that came before was backward and repressed, there are historical analogues dating all the way back to when history started to be recorded. All of those who uttered: "ours is the golden age" down through the centuries, have been proven wrong, and I know even those who think we (as a species) are constantly improving will be proven wrong. It isn't about progress, it's about change.
The America of God, country, family and warm apple pie cooling on moms window sill is gone, and it ain;t coming back any time soon. But then again neither is slavery, or overt racial and sexual discrimination.
"American culture has entered its rebellious adolescence."
If you say so.
"America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between."
-Oscar Wilde
The US already has a plutocratic two party dictatorship, democracy isn't meant to mean voting for the lesser of two evils every four years. I was hoping Romney would get into power for the simple reason that the actions his presidency would have produced would've been a little bit more extreme, and thus a little more likely to further foment violent revolution in the semi-police state known as the US.
"And, looking it back over, I really ought to applaud you on your quality debate skills, man. I was in over my head. I'll bet the subject was irrelevant; you could have put your skills to use tearing down any opinion of mine if I did in fact piss you off with my tone. Really. There were a lot of times there you had me not even knowing what I was trying to say. "
I do deeply respect and admire your magnanimity, and I am sorry I was such an ass.
" I'm looking forward to debating you on another issue, another day."
I look forward to it, although I have very little time for this site these days.
"but I would rather have someone irately make a violent statement at me like "Go hang/fuck/kill yourself"
I didn't violently ask him anything I calm suggested the world would be better off if he wasn't in it, well, maybe it was violent.
"han have someone make attacks on my character or intelligence."
I never overtly attacked your character or your intelligence, you simply decided to interpret my abuse that way.
"I suppose so. I did have an opinion you didn't agree with."
You had far more than that my friend, you started the debate with an air of superiority, you were clearly very sure of your position, probably like anyone else who listens to Condell, the guy sounds like he knows what he's talking about, he seems reasonable, rational, intelligent, and articulate, his intellectual dishonesty is extremely hard to spot.
"But I digress; the reason I abandoned the debate is what I said it is above, and what I said to you in a message when i stopped replying to the debate. Basically: I can't continue to debate with someone who debates like you do and still keep my cool"
The reality is the debate cooled down significantly after a few posts, it became much more cordial, but if I remember correctly, once you sensed my guard was down tried to capitalise on it as a desperate attempt to restore some semblance of parity, and I responded again with a torrent of what you might deemed "heavy handedness", once you realised there was nothing in the debate for you to won, you stopped replying, and the resocrd proves it.
"My position regarding Pat Condell (which was the original point of the debate) has, if anything, strengthened since we last talked."
Even though his views on the Palestinians and Islam in general are abominable.
"I still don't see the baseless ("just watch his videos" and "just look into his eyes" were your main arguments for why Condell is racist) accusations you made as being remotely true. "
So you do beleive the Palestinians are simply mooching beggars who get far too much attention in the media, and its all simply an Arab scam to rob the Jews of their homeland despite international law?
"And when I look back at it, it seems like you're the one who gets condescending while I'm still being reasonable. Perspective is a funny thing. "
I'm well aware I was being a condescending ass, I knew that from the get go, but frankly you dragged up a debate that was months old, and I really didn't want to respond (just like this one), but I find it hard to walk away form any potential challenge, and I so used condescension as a means of lessening the amount of work I had to put into my posts.
"Perspective is a funny thing"
Some would say the only real truth is perspectival truth, although we might all be entitled to our own opinions (i.e. prejudices and flaws), we are not all entitled to our own facts.
"That would have actually been an improvement on the treatment I received during a debate with Garry that touched on that topic."
Really, what exactly did I say that was so bad? And worst than asking you to hang yourself, get real. Perhaps I was bit demeaning and petty, but in fairness, you were sort of asking for it.
"I have only opted out of exactly one debate,"
Are you sure you're not confusing "opted out" for "had your ass handed to you on plate."
"and it was on the grounds that the person I was debating with was being too much of a vulgar"
No, if you were being honest with yourself you’d admit that your position had become rather untenable despite my brash, spiky, and uncompromising style of argument and prose. I remember that argument, I started off being rather reasonable, then your conceited tone pissed me off, and I decided not to show any quarter, as there was none given.
But hey, I’ll let the record speak for itself, any who gives a solitary fuck can check it out here
"Hell, Garry told me to go hang myself "
Ya, and you clearly didn't take my advice.
"If Iran threatens America? Yes"
And what exactly constitutes a threat in your mind? I don't believe Iran has any plans to attack the US, it seems rather obvious to me that the US are trying to stop Iran from achieving their legitimate goals and aspirations as a sovereign nation because the existence of a powerful country in the middle east that isn't subservient to US interests threatens US hegemony in the region.
"If Iran threatens to close or obstruct the straight of Hormuz? Yes."
The US hasn't just threatened sanctions, it has implemented them, even though they have very little international backing, and they have caused the Iranian Rial to depreciate by 40% relative to the dollar in the last week alone, most countries would consider that an act of war, but obviously you only care about your own "potential" suffering.
"If Iran gets nuclear weapons? Yes."
So Israel's nuclear arsenal is of no concern to you? It's not as if they have demonstrated a propensity for invading sovereign nations.
"What an irrelevant point of contention."
I don't remember asserting that the proposition was true or false.
"it would be a violation of the NPT, of which they are signatory."
Unlike Isreal.
"Isn't the duty of the just to impose justice on the unjust?"
Apologies for answering your question with another question, but, what in the world allowed you to come to the ridiculously fantastical conclusion that your nation is somehow just?
I'm not even going to comment on the rest.
"We, in general, are."
No, that simply isn't true, in fact, it has practically zero truth value.
"But there are always those outliers"
I agree, and the US is most certainly one of them.
"who don't want to play nice with their neighbors."
You mean: "don't want to be US and Isreali slaves"
"By all indications, Iran is one of them."
I think Douglas Adams is more deserving of those million upvotes than he is, just sayin is all.
Don't worry buddy, there's be plenty more where that came from, i.e.
"The first of these people suffers from a mild form of bipolarism"
How would you define "bipolar"?
" However, they still struggle to act "normally"
I would ask the same question but I assume your answers is: like everyone else, i.e. being a productive member of society
"As a result of this though, they tend to have more extreme and advanced thoughts."
Not necessarily, or maybe they simply can't crystallise those thoughts into a comprehensible form and then convey them to others.
"If you think of their thoughts as speakers; why have it at half power when you can have them at full blast?"
Would you please elaborate on this?
"This process has seen them become healthily interested in art and philosophy, and they are a better person for their illness."
Would you mind if I asked what led you to hold this view?
Ya, I had the exact same thought when I typed it, but I thought the message would be recived correctly. I should have read: like a child throwing a tantrum" thereby drawing an anaology between the tantrum and the fire. And the attention you play to it constitutes the fuel.
But good to see you're on toes buddy, give yourself a pat on the back from me;-)
Regardless of right or wrong, don't you think its funny that all my criticism of you were deflected right back onto me?
"Are you serious or just joking?"
Assuming this isn;t a rhetorical question, serious.
"I mean, if you want people like that to disappear forever, then close your eyes and ears."
No, suicide is really the only way to be sure
"Otherwise, you seem to be trying to take the "I am righteous in all that I do" path,"
Fair enough, I can see how you've interpreted things that way, the only problem is I don't believe I am righteous "in all that do", nor do I believe I have to be in order to give advice, you clearly believe that only he who is without sin can throw the first stone, I don't.
But my criticisms weren't meant as stones, just advice, take it or leave, or tell me why its wrong, I can assure I will be grateful, but please don't try to misconstrue what I write in order to claim the moral high ground, that annoys greatly.
"claiming you are better than people who use this website and you are on the verge of leaving this nonsense."
Admittedly I should have just left that out, it has no place in a debate forum, its just I typed it up in rush, and didn;t read over it, so I streamed my consciousness onto the page, when you that spontaneous thoughts you may not want to include make their way in there.
"Of course it is nonsense, but it is still entertaining."
If that is what entertains you then each to his own.
"I understand what you are saying, but must you say it? "
If you understood what I was saying in the first post then why did you accuse me of wanting to ridicule this fellow, an advising you to do likewise?
"You have over 1700 posts on here, so it is not as if you haven't fallen for the same trap."
If you find a single post on Astral Projection or any of that other nonsense I'll concede the point.
I really don't have time for these purposeful misinterpretations of what I write, I really should just leave this site and be done with it. Anyway, if I was being unclear you should have asked for clarification but your veiled animosity towards me clearly got the better of you and you couldn't help taking a little dig by trying to capture the moral high ground.
Let me make myself clear (this is what you should have asked me for):
"Yes, he is wrong, but what am I supposed to do? "
I am not asking you to do anything, I am genuinely sorry if you I gave you this impression, you and only you will do whatever you feel is best for you at any given moment in time.
"Just insult him until he gives up his false beliefs?"
I wasn't being that unclear my friend, in fact, I find the intentional misconstruing of my words quite insulting.
"That is just being cruel"
Agreed, that is why I suggested not paying him too much attention, not posting on every nonsense debate he creates. It's really very simple, we encounter many memes in our day to day life, we can only fit so many of them into our heads, so their is competition, now,
what determines whether we accept or reject a scientific meme is whether it is testable, objectively verifiable, etc.
what determines whether we accept or reject a pseudoscientific meme is whether it sounds cool, awesome, reassuring, answers big worrying questions on existence with simple bite sized conspiracy theories, and are generally compelling to us on a personal level.
It isn't a fair fight, humans haven't evolved to think scientifically, this is fact, I go into a hell a lot more detail this but you get the idea, and even though you probably don't realise I would posit that your continued posting on all his debates (even though you are criticsing him and engaging him in rational discussion) is borne out of your innate desire/interest in the topics he discusses, you are therefore falling into exactly the same trap that he is (just to a much lesser degree).
Now, I didn't use any coded language in this reply so if you still don't get what I'm saying, tough.
Peace out.
