Author Topic: The Middle East Discussion Thread  (Read 30839 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 26097
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Middle East Discussion Thread
« Reply #490 on: February 21, 2015, 12:47:51 PM »
Sadly, the internet, social media and the 24 hours news channels have all greatly succeeded in pulling people with differing views even farther apart, and I suspect it will only get worse.  That's why it's so frustrating for me, an independent, to see so many people so extreme in their views.  It's like they haven't figured out that compromise and not always having to be right is a healthy part of life.

Online orcus116

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 9333
Re: The Middle East Discussion Thread
« Reply #491 on: February 21, 2015, 12:55:53 PM »
so the US leaking intel isn't particularly newsworthy (unless your goal in life is to oppose Obama in all of his actions)

We're dealing with a country half full of people that salivate over the thought of Obama "giving the terrorists the upper hand" so they can justify their behavior towards him so it's not surprising that a news agency would latch on to that.

I'm going to assume you're joking, but in case you're not, generally, and with one exception, the people that are THAT set in their ideology (on both sides of the aisle) are the distinct minority.   Vocal, loud, and in the headlines, but a minority.  Again, with one exception, I think most people, even those who don't like Obama (and are counting the 698 days, 9 hours and 18 minutes until the next President is in office) aren't interested in seeing people die to illustrate his perceived failure or to justify their opinions.

I'm just wondering, where did I say the people I was talking about wanted to see people die? Giving away a tactic to an enemy so they can evade an attack is not even close to wanting a terror attack.

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16618
  • Gender: Male
  • Truth is not for all men, only those who seek it.
Re: The Middle East Discussion Thread
« Reply #492 on: February 22, 2015, 02:15:17 AM »
so the US leaking intel isn't particularly newsworthy (unless your goal in life is to oppose Obama in all of his actions)

We're dealing with a country half full of people that salivate over the thought of Obama "giving the terrorists the upper hand" so they can justify their behavior towards him so it's not surprising that a news agency would latch on to that.

I'm going to assume you're joking, but in case you're not, generally, and with one exception, the people that are THAT set in their ideology (on both sides of the aisle) are the distinct minority.   Vocal, loud, and in the headlines, but a minority.  Again, with one exception, I think most people, even those who don't like Obama (and are counting the 698 days, 9 hours and 18 minutes until the next President is in office) aren't interested in seeing people die to illustrate his perceived failure or to justify their opinions.

I fear people with that kind of mindset.  I'm far from a fan of Obama, and I always hoped that his liberal policies would fail in some way, but to want to see people die as a result is taking it in a completely different direction. There are people like that and I hope nobody here is one of them.

For me, seeing terrorism defeated isn't a left/right thing. It's more about religious extremism which I am completely against. I'm an agnostic and to see people hold such antiquated ideologies, such as the penalty for apostasy for example, is ludicrous and I feel they should be met with an equally opposable force.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9907
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Middle East Discussion Thread
« Reply #493 on: February 23, 2015, 06:46:33 AM »
so the US leaking intel isn't particularly newsworthy (unless your goal in life is to oppose Obama in all of his actions)

We're dealing with a country half full of people that salivate over the thought of Obama "giving the terrorists the upper hand" so they can justify their behavior towards him so it's not surprising that a news agency would latch on to that.

I'm going to assume you're joking, but in case you're not, generally, and with one exception, the people that are THAT set in their ideology (on both sides of the aisle) are the distinct minority.   Vocal, loud, and in the headlines, but a minority.  Again, with one exception, I think most people, even those who don't like Obama (and are counting the 698 days, 9 hours and 18 minutes until the next President is in office) aren't interested in seeing people die to illustrate his perceived failure or to justify their opinions.

I'm just wondering, where did I say the people I was talking about wanted to see people die? Giving away a tactic to an enemy so they can evade an attack is not even close to wanting a terror attack.

I took the phrase "give the terrorists the upper hand" to be a general comment and not specifically tied to the "giving of a tactic".    Though it isn't far-fetched to assume that if a terrorist (especially an ISIL terrorist) lives to fight another day it means they WILL take more lives.   But in any event, that isn't the main point of my post. 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9907
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Middle East Discussion Thread
« Reply #494 on: February 23, 2015, 06:53:34 AM »
It's like they haven't figured out that compromise and not always having to be right is a healthy part of life.

No.  They are all for compromise.  It is just that to them it means you compromise your beliefs to fit theirs.

But the main point is about the "always having to be right".  I get accused of that often, because I don't let certain points go, but it isn't about "being right" for me.  Well, it is, but not in the way you think.  I don't think I am right all the time, in fact, I KNOW I'm not right most of the time.  But I'm looking for "right" and that means, to me anyway, putting all the ideas - ALL of them, even the distasteful or abhorrent ones - in a figurative bowl of milk, and seeing which one floats to the surface.   Yes, I have my biases and filters (personal independence and accountability are non-negotiable for me) but I'm for the best idea. 

there are too many people in this world that aren't even interested in HEARING about the other point of view, and moreover, are actively seeking to have it expunged from the record.  If your belief, and your idea is so sound and strong, there's nothing to worry about; it will survive the discussion (I often bring this up in the "creation/evolution" argument).  Teach both sides of the debate, no matter how ludicrous you think one side to be, and believe me, over time the right idea will prosper and the wrong one will wither and die; it just may not be on YOUR timeframe, Mr. MTV Generation. 

Offline portnoy311

  • Posts: 816
Re: The Middle East Discussion Thread
« Reply #495 on: April 14, 2016, 10:17:15 PM »
It's like they haven't figured out that compromise and not always having to be right is a healthy part of life.

No.  They are all for compromise.  It is just that to them it means you compromise your beliefs to fit theirs.

But the main point is about the "always having to be right".  I get accused of that often, because I don't let certain points go, but it isn't about "being right" for me.  Well, it is, but not in the way you think.  I don't think I am right all the time, in fact, I KNOW I'm not right most of the time.  But I'm looking for "right" and that means, to me anyway, putting all the ideas - ALL of them, even the distasteful or abhorrent ones - in a figurative bowl of milk, and seeing which one floats to the surface.   Yes, I have my biases and filters (personal independence and accountability are non-negotiable for me) but I'm for the best idea. 

there are too many people in this world that aren't even interested in HEARING about the other point of view, and moreover, are actively seeking to have it expunged from the record.  If your belief, and your idea is so sound and strong, there's nothing to worry about; it will survive the discussion (I often bring this up in the "creation/evolution" argument).  Teach both sides of the debate, no matter how ludicrous you think one side to be, and believe me, over time the right idea will prosper and the wrong one will wither and die; it just may not be on YOUR timeframe, Mr. MTV Generation.

But Stadler, you must be willing to admit when a debate is over. When it comes to evolution, ESPECIALLY in the classroom (I think I caught caps-lock-itis), those that disagree with evolution and are pushing for the "debate" to be taught aren't even involved in the actual debate. Scientific matters shouldn't have to bow to outside, religious, pressure.

I agree with what you're saying in principle. But until every politician in the Bible Belt suddenly buys into evolution, by your definition this will never be a "dead" debate, even though those politicians are utterly irrelevant. Scientifically, and when it comes to the validity of evolution, at least. But unfortunately, way, way too relevant when it comes to what is taught in classrooms.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9907
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Middle East Discussion Thread
« Reply #496 on: April 15, 2016, 12:42:44 PM »
But Stadler, you must be willing to admit when a debate is over. When it comes to evolution, ESPECIALLY in the classroom (I think I caught caps-lock-itis), those that disagree with evolution and are pushing for the "debate" to be taught aren't even involved in the actual debate. Scientific matters shouldn't have to bow to outside, religious, pressure.

I agree with what you're saying in principle. But until every politician in the Bible Belt suddenly buys into evolution, by your definition this will never be a "dead" debate, even though those politicians are utterly irrelevant. Scientifically, and when it comes to the validity of evolution, at least. But unfortunately, way, way too relevant when it comes to what is taught in classrooms.

I don't disagree in principle, but sometimes that lesson has to be taught to subsequent generations until it's (figuratively) in our DNA.  I don't really have a problem appeasing those politicians, as it will soon come to mean that subsequent politicians won't make it an issue.  Like politicians after Kennedy had to come to grips with the idea that they have to incorporate the media into their existence.  That was a huge factor in 1960, but it really didn't sink in until Reagan, over 20 years later.  Look, we don't even have a generation of parents that are teaching their kids this stuff at home.  Hell, my parents - who aren't even religious and know better intuitively didn't push the evolution theory as any kind of settled gospel, but I am now with my kid.  She's going to grow up KNOWING that to be true, not intuiting. 

This is the same in the Middle East.  As communications grow stronger, and infrastructure becomes a bigger part of their daily life (and not just a means to move oil) they too will realize that certain compromises are necessary (I don't mean it literally, because it's false, but think along the lines of Freidman's McDonald's theory).