9/11 - 10 Year Anniversary

[Word]

Yeah I corrected that shortly before you posted, sorry about that and thanks for pointing it out. I've also tried to clarify the last sentence a bit more:

Nobody apart from real Anti-Islamists, who are still a minority, really benefitted from the political reactions that derived from 9/11.

(I think only time will tell if the Iraquis and Afghans benefitted from it - and although the terrorists were able to put down a marker i believe it's now more difficult for them to do something like that again)

[Concord]

And Concord. "I mean exactly what I say, nothing more, even though I expect people to divine the great deal more that I know I embedded in my short and deliberately evasive and vague phrases; but I'm so irritated that people would assume and read anything into my incoherent, faux-font-of-wisdom proclamations, then would have to come back and sloppily elaborate on them—without actually being any clearer—because no one read my focking mind the first time."

Don't attack it if you don't understand it.

Dude, just shut up. You're not insightful, you offer no analysis of value. Stop posing. Yes, you are a poseur. A self-evidently stupid one. Who apparently believes in torture? And an aggressive war that had no relation to 9/11 or al-Qa'ida, or any threat to the US? You still believe that bullshit? You're even more of a damned fool than I thought, and that deserves attack.

You obviously disagree with me, but I'm not attacking anyone or spamming or doing anything wrong. I don't have any issue with anyone here, just get off my case. I can have my opinions and you have yours. It's ok if I share mine in a respectful manner. If they're as brain-dead as you claim, don't bother responding to them; I won't be offended if I'm ignored.

I also never defended torture or the War in Iraq.

[Hoax]

it was a big tragic and a lot of people died and I do agree worst things have happened but that doesn't take away the fact it was horrible. RIP everyone who passed away on that day (civilians, firefighters and rest of people who tried to help).

QFT end of


oh yeah and I hate muslims and it was an inside job

[Word]

Don't attack it if you don't understand it.

Concord, you know you'd make it easier for the readers if you point out and explain things someone doesn't understand in a more detailed way. You know how to do that when you're dealing with a less controversial topic on playfortress. Just provide better reasons (and if you have a questionable opinion, you can still provide reasons for that). At some point I couldn't follow either...and it wasn't the language barrier this time

[Phytotron]

Don't attack it if you don't understand it.

Concord, you know you'd make it easier for the readers if you point out and explain things someone doesn't understand in a more detailed way. You know how to do that when you're dealing with a less controversial topic on playfortress.

Indeed. He'll write a book on a single game mode of some backwater video game, but expects to bowl us all over with his one-liner "profundities" on anything else. Whatever.

[Concord]

I except to do nothing of the sort. "Whatever."

The real issue here, is that you decided I was smart or an intellectual or a liberal or posing as any of these things, and then blame me for expressing any views a smart, an intellectual or a liberal person would hold. Time for you to tap into that holy scientific method and deduce that my views prove me other. Or else, if you are unwilling to conclude I'm of basically average intelligence and should just be lumped in with the rest of the fat, ignorant America you call the People, admit that well-informed and critical thinker can hold views that disagree with yours.

Anyway, I think this whole thread has been drawn into essentially a debate on my posts and semantics. I'm flattered but would prefer it return to the topic at hand.

I believe in the theory of evolution; I've read some books on it, there's a lot of evidence that supports it, I don't go around questioning its basic premises. I accept the tenets of that theory. There are still a lot of questions in the field; the one I'm most interested by being group selection, which I think could have a lot of implications for how societies formed in different parts of the world.

I also believe in god.

I also believe that the goal of a man or woman elected to some position of federal government in the United States of America is morally beholden to serve the interests of the citizens of the United States of America. Only Americans can vote for President, for example. And so, a President considering whether to, say, invade Iraq should consider the interests of the American people, not the Iraq people. The system of national government limits moral considerations to a similarly national scope. Morals end at the border. The executive considers the following: would a citizen vote for somehow who would better their life or not? I'd suggest that everyone votes for who they think will improve life, and they can define improvement in whatever terms they want.

In the case of Iraq, the Americans of the time did not benefit from the war, but those of the future might well. Environmental protections are essential investing in the future at the cost of the present, and it is no wonder that those policy garner so little support. Future voters cannot vote in present elections, but present voters can vote with the future in mind. It naturally is easier to do this when one has a job, and a house, and some food, and whose children getting a real education.

What got me upset was less your stance on the validity of evolution, or your condemnation of torture- torture is easy to condemn; but was it torture? and one must deicide if torturing someone to prevent innocent death justified? I condemn murder too, but I'd still fight the Battle of Midway- but more your general attitude that anyone who has critically examined the truth of the situation; and who is not previously engaged with their own agenda; and who has a sufficient knowledge of history; ought to come to the same conclusion you did; or else they did not critically examine the truth of the situation or they're just posing as someone who does or just not that smart in the first place.

And before I get that "straw-man" comment again, I'm concluding all this about you through these things you've written in this thread.

This truly is one of the stupider threads this forum has hosted.

Who apparently believes in torture? And an aggressive war that had no relation to 9/11 or al-Qa'ida, or any threat to the US? You still believe that bullshit? You're even more of a damned fool than I thought, and that deserves attack.

By the way, some of you really need to drop this "meh, worse stuff has happened" attitude. Comparing death tolls and being dismissive of lesser ones is at the least simple-minded and crass.

It's a valid method of normalizing 9/11. Men killing one another is the rule in our history not the exception. Even if you don't think it's valid, they don't "need to drop" it.

This is one of the dumber threads this forum has seen, seriously.

This thread was destined to be a crock of horse apples from the beginning, what with its being on this forum. Most of you weren't even 10 years old when it happened. INW was, what, six? Slov must've been an infant.

I was 80 when the second tower was it, but it doesn't make my opinion any more valid.

So, what of value could any of you possibly have to offer here? Nothing but what would have been predicted, and what we've got so far: simplistic, uninformed, unreasoned claptrap. I did expect a bit more mindless emotionalism, though. Exceptions, of course, being owned and sinewav, and sorta appa.

I don't understand how it's obvious who the exceptions are. Actually, I don't understand how you can possibly be so wise as to be in a position to decide who is adding to the discussion and who isn't. Dissenting opinions add just as much to a thread as consenting ones.

You spent a lot of time telling us we're stupid and not much explaining why. I can conclude from this two possibilities. The first is that you think we are either to far below your level of intellect to be worthy of the time it would take to explain to us why were all idiots. The second is that, after reading your explanation of why we're all wrong, we would not agree with you, and you might have to admit that your view isn't obviously right to anyone who's considered the problem. Neither of those outcomes are good for your argument. To generalize, the contingencies outlined above are the main reason why the "rational left" so rarely presents their arguments. On most issues holding their cards in until the fellow across the table reveals his ace high with a picture of Jesus drawn on it.

[Mecca]

How was Sunday for you guys?

My Sunday was great, thanks for asking.

[Phytotron]

....

Wrong again, on every point. Yawn.

Did want to make this one response to Cody's, after having been distracted by all that other stupidity: The bailouts aren't the cause of the national debt, and the national debt isn't the cause of the recession.

[Concord]

....

Wrong again, on every point. Yawn.

Well, that response leads me to believe I was at least right on this one:

You spent a lot of time telling us we're stupid and not much explaining why. I can conclude from this two possibilities. The first is that you think we are either to far below your level of intellect to be worthy of the time it would take to explain to us why were all idiots. The second is that, after reading your explanation of why we're all wrong, we would not agree with you, and you might have to admit that your view isn't obviously right to anyone who's considered the problem. Neither of those outcomes are good for your argument. To generalize, the contingencies outlined above are the main reason why the "rational left" so rarely presents their arguments.

[Phytotron]

"On every point."

You're not paying attention if you don't think I've spent a lot of time and virtual ink, especially considering and relative to the medium, "explaining why."

I'm going now. Get in a parting shot, as you're evidently getting alerted to replies to this thread. And I don't feel like treating it like an IRC chat or some shit, nor do I have the time at the moment.

[ItzAcid]

....

Wrong again, on every point. Yawn.

I'm sick of your elitism and pessimism, again. Yawn.

I liked Concord's points much better than your own. Regardless of their content, he presented them in a much more friendly way, and your constantly pessimistic, egotistic, and bombastic remarks accomplish nothing. Anyone can use multiple adjectives (which you've gotten better on recently). If you want to continue not accepting others views and promoting your own as the only correct way to think, get a blog for Christ's sake. I'm tired of having nearly every topic clustered with negative replies from the start, as Appa said in a different forum. I'm not sure what Sine thinks of me, but I love the way he presents his ideas for the most part. With forum newcomers, he's friendly too, it seems. The community as a whole needs to be more welcoming. Z-man is great at not taking sides though. He saves the forums . Yes, I realize this contributes to that negativity but it has gotten old. I loved this community at first, but after reading so many arguments, criticisms, etc., it's depressing. I'm tired of seeing others berated for having their own views, and in some cases, just making a somewhat unintelligent remark. Enlighten them, don't start a rant on the "narcissistic, blah blah," nature of their character.

Sorry to be negative about this stuff though . It's what I posted against. Anyways, you can post in response to this, but the only forum activity I will participate in, from here on out, will be the competition area. Too many arguments elsewhere.

Concord, that last post is right on the money.

Edit: Meant to add this: Phyto, you have some great points on various topics. If you presented them in a different manner, they'd be great. That's all

[Concord]

"On every point."

You communicated that you disagreed, but you didn't actually disagree.

You're not paying attention if you don't think I've spent a lot of time and virtual ink, especially considering and relative to the medium, "explaining why."

And in absolute terms none at all.

I'm going now. Get in a parting shot, as you're evidently getting alerted to replies to this thread. And I don't feel like treating it like an IRC chat or some shit, nor do I have the time at the moment.

Yeah I get alerted by your name next to the most recent post when I check the forums. If you don't feel like treating it like an IRC chat, then respond to my points in turn rather than deflecting and dodging. I lie on the ropes for the first four pages of this thread, and you wail away. Now you seem tired, like you've punched yourself out. You disappoint me, you don't hit hard. You don't hit, you push.

[Olive]

this is why I dont come here often anymore

an adult playing with a thesaurus, you would make a great motivational.

[Word]

I'm sick of your elitism and pessimism, again. Yawn.

It's not elitism to ask someone to back up what he says. If you can't stand people who know more than you, you shouldn't use electricity and live in a cave.

Regardless of their content, he presented them in a much more friendly way, and your constantly pessimistic, egotistic, and bombastic remarks accomplish nothing.

You should really look at the content. There were also many things in world history which have been presented friendly, and then everyone was surprised about the outcome (the Holocaust, for example).
(And apart from that, there wasn't any egoistic, bombastic or pessimistic remark in his posts. )

Sorry to be negative about this stuff though . It's what I posted against. Anyways, you can post in response to this, but the only forum activity I will participate in, from here on out, will be the competition area. Too many arguments elsewhere.

Disclaimers like that never make your opinion more valid.

The community as a whole needs to be more welcoming.

I disagree; the forums have always been mainly a support resource, not just a socializing-thing like most clan sites (the fact that I, the pru guy, say that should alarm you a bit, lol). They shouldn't serve as a clan site. If there's a controversial topic or some debate that depends on different peoples' opinions they're doing it at their own risk and are responsible if they are unable to make a good point. Or they're lazy and cause others to answer it with long replies and then just leave and say something along the lines of "You didn't understand it". Concord now at least tried to be more clear as it seems. You should be happy about any reply, because it shows that someone cares. If someone disagrees with you and you don't like it, but his reasons are better, perhaps you learn something new.

[sinewav]

Aaaaand Word nails it! Good job Word. You get a sincerely felt +1 for your previous post.

this is why I dont come here often anymore

an adult playing with a thesaurus, you would make a great motivational.

If you're only coming here to complain, then you're still coming too often. Here is something many of you don't understand because you don't actually use a thesaurus or dictionary. When Phytotron strings a bunch of similar sounding words together, he isn't just doing it for dramatic effect. In most cases he's using them specifically to emphasize their important, subtle, and completely relevant differences. Of course, to the unlearned it just looks like word-padding.