ELEPHANT-DONKEY.com

Socrates famously said, "The only thing I know is that I know nothing," so by definition, and by his own admission, tha busta was ignaront az shizznizzle4shizzzlEWIZZZLE!!!!( . )( . ) Far reals, tho, I totally disagree with swdowning, and I would've liked to take this debate, and I probably would've addressed the statements he made rather than - A) Asking him to cite a "book", which he doesn't even mention, and - B) Calling him 'ignorant' without explaining how I came to that conclusion. Did I miss a part of your rebuttal, or is that pretty much it in a nutshell? If I did, please enlighten me - cure me of my wretched ignorance.

IamFry | 08/13/08

lmao. IamFry makes good points. i personally believe swdowning is wrong on the issue but i won't vote for Otrain86 because he is making a horrible argument.

Mark | 08/13/08

I am so confused at what sw is talking about. Where is the book?

AppleFritter | 08/13/08

Um... "There is objective good and evil. This is the best justification for the U.S. to intervene abroad." So, what you're saying is that because US intervention abroad (Which SOME of us were very furious at over the "Dokdo/Liancourt Rocks" incident, if any of you know what that is) is objectively good, we must all support it. That is the objectively worst argument I have ever heard from any book. A civilian tries to go for what is the best "good" for himself or for the group that he is part of. Those goods may not be parallel to other groups/individuals' goods, therefore SUBJECTIVE qualities. As to the whole,"When we succeed, EVERYBODY's happy!" statement, people are happy either way. It's just that 1) How many are happy and 2) Who are happy. This is an almost serious case of what I call the "Christianity disorder", where people who are not on my side/with my faith/with my ideas are infidels or the evil ones and the rest are good guys who should wipe off the stain of the earth. Thank you for giving me a brain aneurysm due to stupidity. Have a nice day.

CorruptAbramoff | 08/14/08

Now see, even though CorruptAbramoff misses swdowning's point completely, as he is referring more to ultimate, moral right and wrong, not corrupted, watch-my-own-butt, do whatever it takes to win, the end justifies the means, subjective rights, he still makes a way better argument than Otrain86.

RTBA2A | 08/15/08

swdowning's argument has strayed from the topic, but that's fine; I'll argue against the second argument presented. Of course, the situation in Iraq is different from your Nazi Germany example, as it is different from Sudan, Bosnia, etc. Though you seem to be arguing that WHATEVER the injustice, we're obligated to intervene. Not so. Here's what it comes down to: what is to be gained, what is the price tag, and is it worth it?

IamFry | 08/15/08

Would you build your financially ailing neighbor a deck in order to increase his property value and save him from financial ruin? Is building a deck the most sensible solution? Is it worth the strain that it puts on you? How much better off will your neighbor be with a new deck? These are the practical questions that come into play when considering intervening in international maters, and every situation is different. Many advocates of the Iraq war can't even define what it is that we're 'buying', so understandably, many people have a problem with the 'price tag'.

IamFry | 08/15/08

By the way, the 'price tag' is trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of American lives lost.

IamFry | 08/15/08

IamFry - I think I haven't strayed from the topic. I have used specific examples to illustrate my point, but the multicultural fallacy is always at the root. Your "deck" analogy is interesting, but not particularly relevant. My take on U.S. intervention is this: If an aggrieved people requests our involvement to, say, avert their annihilation, we have the moral obligation, as the world's superpower, to intervene. I believe that it is in our national interest to stop racial cleansing and holocausts; it is in our humanitarian interest, and I think that's tied to our national identity. As to the price tag of the Iraq war, please cite your source for your claim that we have lost "tens of thousands of American lives." The latest official count is fewer than 5,000. Exaggeration can be disproved, and doesn't help your case.

swdowning | 08/15/08

You're right; there have been fewer than 5,000 American casualties in Iraq (not to mention the duress on parents, wives, siblings, children, etc. of killed soldiers, or the hundreds of thousands of Iraquis, many of whom were civilians), but if we stay there for "one-hundred years", the ultimate pricetag will no doubt include tens of thousands of American lives. What I mean by "pricetag" is: This is what you end up paying for what you get.

IamFry | 08/16/08

Of course the deck analogy is relevant, because it illustrates the principle on which judgements such as invading Iraq should be based. What do you mean, "racial cleansing and holocausts?" What does that have to do with Iraq? Also, the topic of whether or not there is such a thing as "objective right/ wrong" doesn't conclude with, "I've proven that there is such a thing as objective right and wrong, THEREFORE, it's a given that we should invade Iraq." That's a gargantuan leap of fallacious logic.

IamFry | 08/16/08

IamFry - Oh, OK, you assumed that we all would naturally understand your unstated "100-year-war" price tag, and not associate your statement with any current reality. My bad. But since your position doesn't have any basis in fact (at least not for another 93 years or so), I think we can focus instead on the current reality. The "deck" analogy isn't relevant as stated because there's no mention of whether the neighbor requested the deck. Perhaps he thinks a new master bath or a new kitchen or a new roof would better improve his property value. If he thinks that, and we decide just to build a new deck, we might be helping, but perhaps not as much as we could, and certainly not as much as our neighbor thinks we could. You might have intended that this be presumed, but without actually stating it, you render it easily discountable. You ask "What does [racial cleansing and holocaust] have to do with Iraq?" Hmmm. How about the fact that Saddam Hussein used weapons of mass destruction to annihilate entire Kurdish regions because he wanted to exterminate the Kurds? If there is objective right and wrong, and if democracy is better than tyranny, and if freedom is better than oppression, and if the Iraqi people welcome the changes our involvement has wrought, then we are objectively right to be there.

swdowning | 08/17/08

I haven't seen as much backpedaling in any of the debates I've watched as Fry has just engaged in. Fry, you should be ashamed. I think you pride yourself on your ability to shift your original precepts in order to justify your point. Wrong. Let me tell you you're wrong. swd, I disagree with your original statement, but since you've been consistent and have adhered to your initial claim, you have my vote.

rkellar | 08/17/08

rkellar - how have I backpedaled?! I should be ashamed?! The only thing downing 'corrected' me on is the *current number of US casualties, which I clarified, the price at which you buy something is what it ULTIMATELY ends up costing. For instance, if you buy a cool gadget off the TEEvee for five easy payments of $19.95, you don't consider the second payment as your total cost, you consider what it will cost once you've made all five. Are you suggesting that we've suffered all the casualties we'll ever suffer? At this rate, it will cost us trillions more dollars and thousands more casualties before we're 'done' - if we stay there.

IamFry | 08/17/08

...and downing, "...there's no mention of whether the neighbor requested the deck." Yes! You're starting to get it! That's why the analogy works. Maybe some people in your neighbor's house will greet you as a liberator for your clever solution. Maybe some will throw rocks at you. Some people in your house will say that building a deck isn't the best solution, as it requires you borrow large sums of money from the oppressive Chinese guy down the street, whose stranglehold on your finance should be the last thing you want. The "genocides" you're talking about in Iraq weren't genocides, they were conflicts between ideological factions that continue to kill each other today, unabated - not to mention, that isn't even the reason that we supposedly went in in the first place!

IamFry | 08/17/08

IamFry - Your deck analogy works only if the citizens of Iraq are as well-versed in what it takes to establish a free-market democracy as the average inhabitant of your neighbor's home is well-versed in what the best way to increase property value is. Given the personal and collective histories involved, and given the tremendous disparity between the two conditions, I still have to hold with my original call that the analogy falls short. So you dismiss the Kurdish genocides as "ideological conflicts"? Well, I suppose in a literal sense that's tautological. It doesn't negate, however, that the Kurds were so unfortunate as to have an ideological conflict with the tyrannical monster Saddam Hussein, who used weapons of mass destruction to wipe out entire villages in large areas of northern Iraq for no other reason than that the villages were Kurdish villages. That qualifies as genocide in my book. But tell me if you think that Hitler and Stalin engaged in genocide. Or were those also "ideological conflicts"? If not, then perhaps you can inform us of the difference between what Hussein did and what Hitler and Stalin did? We enumerated several reasons for going into Iraq. Among them were getting rid of Saddam and preventing his further use of WMDs (a need, by the bye, that was acknowledged by Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright as they left office). As I write this, however, it seems a moot point. Otrain appears to be defaulting without having the class to actually forfeit. I hope I'm wrong in my assessment, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for him to respond.

swdowning | 08/19/08

swdowning i know when i am wrong and man enough to admit defeat. i stand by my convictions but as far as the debate goes you ate me alive, well done

Otrain86 | 08/19/08

Thanks for the kind words, Otrain.

swdowning | 08/20/08

Well, I'M not done with you, downing, and Otrain, you went above and beyond in conceding, especially after having been called 'class-less' by downing - an act which displays very little class in and of itself.

IamFry | 08/20/08

Fry - Just speaking from experience. I said I hoped I was wrong, and I was. Otrain has shown great class in openly forfeiting, and I acknowledge that. As to you not being done with me, bring it.

swdowning | 08/21/08