Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Vorthon]

* Vorthon would like to take this moment to express his desire to no longer be an occupant of this planetary body.

[GreatJustice]

Even if there were armed men, there were unarmed men, and killing the whole fucking block because of it isn't justifiable. Furthermore, being armed doesn't automatically mean you're hunting American soldiers.

It was a group of armed men and a man peeking around the corner towards a group of Americans. He was pointing a camera, but that isn't obvious from the video, and their believing it to be an RPG seems like an honest mistake to me.

Basically what Nadaka said mixed with what sluissa said.

I don't buy it. Even a very large camera is not comparable to a RPG-6 in size. Hell, there was an RPG-6 amongst them, which the camera was clearly not the same as.

Only two of the men were armed. If you have two armed men and a bunch of unarmed men standing around them, do you know what is not an appropriate response? 30 mm cannon fire. Shooting said cannon at the unarmed ones while they tried to run or crawl away. Lying to your operator that a van is collecting weapons so you can shoot at it too.

Furthermore, the United States Armed Forces pride themselves upon efficiency and professionalism more than almost anything else, and so I expect such standards as not shooting journalists and children to be enforced. As an occupying force, these men are responsible for the safety of civilians. That is the responsibility one takes on when they occupy another nation, even if that nation's people despise them.

I supported the Iraq War because I thought I could count on our military do get shit done correctly.

If you expect the military to get shit done correctly, then you're sadly mistaken.

[Glowcat]

Here's a bit of feminism-worthy news: New Mexico governor joins in on the redefinition of rape to deny women benefits

"Forcible rape" is back in the news, this time in New Mexico, where the administration of Governor Susana Martinez is proposing to require a "forcible rape" means-test for women seeking childcare assistance.

Yup... "You weren't really raped, you welfare leech!"

[Truean]

http://news.yahoo.com/romney-interview-says-tax-rate-fair-033140287.html
http://news.yahoo.com/why-plane-windows-dont-roll-down-romney-221323006.html

Really? How does this man have a legit chance at the Presidency? He is the logical result of the pandering we've done to the spoiled in this country who think their checkbook equals their IQ and that they should always have their way. No, the customer is NOT always right and is in fact, often wrong. There is a reason we don't let people roll down the damn airplane windows no matter how much the morons want to.... The fact that you are purchasing something does not should not automatically mean you can a.) always be considered correct no matter how wrong you are, and b.) get away with being a total and complete jerk. Unfortunately, that's exactly how it works out in real life....

And, as for a fair tax rate... 14%? Really? And that's just what he'll admit to. Who knows how little he paid in previous years. I really don't see what "small business" Romney has started with his 14% lower tax rate. I don't see how he's hired anybody. What company has he invested in that has hired anybody? It's the fuzzy math/broken logic that I.) Rich people employ people. II.) Rich people that have more money employ more people. III.) Give rich people more money and they will employ more people. This just blatantly ignores every other possible use of money.... It also ignores that they're hiring people... in China. The cure for everything can't be lower taxes or no taxes. That's like holding up a sugar pill as the cure for all ills without saying HOW it will cure all ills. It's a placebo.

His 14% on 21 million is fair...and those who didn't pay federal taxes last year, are useless and not worth his time.... He has spoken. [sigh] Veterans, elderly.... When Biden, the king of dumb gaffs, is on you about gaffs, you screwed up.

[Nadaka]

14% is by no means fair. A flat tax would have to be in the 25% to 30% range to pay for the federal government. And we do not have a flat tax for good reasons. 25% of $30k a year is devastating, while 25% of $150k a year is merely inconvenient and 25% of $21 million a year need never really be felt at all. Any wealthy person paying less than that is not even close to paying a fair rate.

[palsch]

This is going to be a little long. For those who aren't bothered, have this.

For anyone who is interested;

Spoiler: Collateral Murder discussion (click to show/hide)

Regarding the Collateral Murder video, I probably come at this from a different perspective from some of you, and I think it's worth trying to explain that.

My general view of life is that there is no person or action that is not worth trying to understand. We will sometimes (OK, often) fail, and that understanding doesn't have to excuse, justify or even fully rationalise/explain their actions. But failing to attempt to understand is surrendering a part of our humanity, as well as generally a bad idea on a practical level. And this goes doubly for those we disagree with or who commit acts we hate.

Let's take political or religious debate. I can demonstrate how conservatism and libertarianism are full of shit all day. I can explain liberal and progressive policies and views. I can show the gaping holes in the Christian faith. I can expose all kinds of disgusting racism and sexism and homophobia or whatever until the cows come home.

But without understanding the people on the other side none of this will be worth a jot beyond circle jerking with other liberals.

To actually reach those we wish to convince we have to understand why they hold the positions they hold and address those underlying reasons, not the fun fringe elements that everyone always spend all their time on. It's hugely entertaining to argue with creationists about the minutia of molecular biology (well, I think it is anyway...) but for 99% of creationists it's not really going to shake their underlying belief in a special creation of mankind as God's chosen. Working out the arguments and beliefs that actually matter - or which are genuinely points that can be debated rather than just ending up as two people screaming in each others faces - requires a deeper understanding of their beliefs than an empty surface level debate would.

And when it comes to people committing acts that we find horrific that understanding is even more important. Without genuinely trying to understand why they did that thing they did - by just writing them off as sick minded or applying some easily demonised label in place of an actual explanation - we are instantly weakening any attempts at preventing such actions in the future. Not understanding the motivations or underlying reasons behind the act means that future prevention will be missing that critical context, and probably the entire point.

Further to this, condemning an action without an attempt at understanding why it was committed can often result in similar problems, especially when it either singles out someone as particularly special or generalises them as part of a group. The former makes it easy to miss similar problems in others, as we give up trying to understand what made them that way and just accept that something was wrong in that particular model. The latter paints an entire group with a brush they may well not deserve.

When it comes to situations far outside our experience or particularly horrific acts it is hard to even attempt this sort of understanding. Worse, actually understanding people we disagree with can lead to compassion or at least make it harder to hate them, which a lot of people really don't want. But that's kinda the point.

One example related to the CM video;

Back in the early days of Iraq (IIRC, no way I can dig up these articles so take this as a hypothetical if you don't believe me) there were a couple of incidents where soldiers were killed by enemies playing dead or injured. The two I remember were a man who concealed his gun then shot troops in the back when they thought the room was cleared and someone who set off a grenade when they came to check the body.

A few weeks later (again, IIRC) there was a video of American troops supposedly executing injured captives. It was of them clearing a building and putting an extra round into any bodies, injured or dead, to make sure they were actually incapacitated before moving past them. This was being painted as a war crime. After all, the people they were executing were already out of the fight, right?

Understanding why they were doing it didn't make the video easier to watch, the actions less brutal and horrific or the legalities any different. What it did mean is that the soldiers committing the acts were maybe not soulless killers out to murder as many people as they could. It meant that you could actually understand them as humans committing morally questionable actions in a morally questionable situation.

I don't really want to re-watch the CM video, but my reading of it, with context, was the gunner trying to protect people on the ground. He made a call on limited information in a high pressure situation and it was a horrific, wrong call. I just can picture myself making the same decision in his position and so find it harder to flatly condemn and demonise him in the manner that many do.

[Scelly9]

Personally, I find laughing at having just slaughtered 15 people exceedingly fucked up. And, "Oh well" is not an acceptable response to having shot two children. The fact that he did that does not help my perception of that as a honest mistake.

[GlyphGryph]

It's the same problem I have with "bad cops" - my problem isn't so much with the individual, but with the system that tells them this sort of behaviour is acceptable.

The US has a severe discipline problem in it's military.

[Truean]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57520009-503544/romney-teacher-contributions-to-politicians-should-be-limited/

I don't even know. I mean is it "free speech" to make political contributions if you're a company, but not if you're ... say ... a teacher? I mean an individual....

"(CBS News) Republican nominee Mitt Romney said Tuesday that Democratic politicians have a conflict of interest in dealing with teacher unions because the unions contribute so heavily to their campaigns. He suggested that money should somehow be diverted or cut off, although he did not offer details."

So by that logic, if you simply flipped things around, could you say that Republican politicians have a conflict of interest in dealing with business interests because the businesses contribute so heavily to their campaigns?

Shoe wouldn't look so good on the other foot would it, Mr. Romney?

[RedKing]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57520009-503544/romney-teacher-contributions-to-politicians-should-be-limited/

I don't even know. I mean is it "free speech" to make political contributions if you're a company, but not if you're ... say ... a teacher? I mean an individual....

Well, you know how it goes: "Four legs good, two legs bad" becomes "Four legs good, two legs better". Corporations deserve the same rights as people. Then after they get them, they deserve MORE rights than people.

[Scelly9]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57520009-503544/romney-teacher-contributions-to-politicians-should-be-limited/

I don't even know. I mean is it "free speech" to make political contributions if you're a company, but not if you're ... say ... a teacher? I mean an individual....

Well, you know how it goes: "Four legs good, two legs bad" becomes "Four legs good, two legs better". Corporations deserve the same rights as people. Then after they get them, they deserve MORE rights than people.

That book is wonderful.

[GreatJustice]

14% is by no means fair. A flat tax would have to be in the 25% to 30% range to pay for the federal government. And we do not have a flat tax for good reasons. 25% of $30k a year is devastating, while 25% of $150k a year is merely inconvenient and 25% of $21 million a year need never really be felt at all. Any wealthy person paying less than that is not even close to paying a fair rate.

Frankly, if you advocate a flat tax, it should be a flat tax of 0%.

[Mlamlah]

It's the same problem I have with "bad cops" - my problem isn't so much with the individual, but with the system that tells them this sort of behaviour is acceptable.

The US has a severe discipline problem in it's military.

Frankly, i think a lot of this can be boiled down to the degree of autonomy in a traditional military, there is just not enough in place to hold it responsible to a public. Military forces need to be more closely surveyed and actually held accountable for heinous actions. If a society is truly going to perform as a democratic entity, that entity needs to be able to see what the fuck it's own hands in the world are doing.

[Nadaka]

14% is by no means fair. A flat tax would have to be in the 25% to 30% range to pay for the federal government. And we do not have a flat tax for good reasons. 25% of $30k a year is devastating, while 25% of $150k a year is merely inconvenient and 25% of $21 million a year need never really be felt at all. Any wealthy person paying less than that is not even close to paying a fair rate.

Frankly, if you advocate a flat tax, it should be a flat tax of 0%.

1: what is your reasoning for that? That sounds like a horrible idea. The only way to pay for government would be through inflation.

2: I would only advocate a flat tax if the social welfare system was massively better than it is. It would have to be practically utopian where everyone basic needs are met at virtually no cost.

[GreatJustice]

14% is by no means fair. A flat tax would have to be in the 25% to 30% range to pay for the federal government. And we do not have a flat tax for good reasons. 25% of $30k a year is devastating, while 25% of $150k a year is merely inconvenient and 25% of $21 million a year need never really be felt at all. Any wealthy person paying less than that is not even close to paying a fair rate.

Frankly, if you advocate a flat tax, it should be a flat tax of 0%.

1: what is your reasoning for that? That sounds like a horrible idea. The only way to pay for government would be through inflation.

2: I would only advocate a flat tax if the social welfare system was massively better than it is. It would have to be practically utopian where everyone basic needs are met at virtually no cost.

The Federal government ran a sizable surplus and had a booming economy back before it had an income tax. It's not like there aren't other ways to pay for government programs. Plus, the IRS and enforcement of the income tax uses a lot of money in of itself. Not as much as it earns, mind, but the loss wouldn't be as massive as it could be.