Fahrenheit 9/11 : Did you see it and if you did what do you think about it ?

How about taking it a step further to say that Humans are sopposed to think and reason.

 

First of all ,I'm not you're "pal" Operation Brainwash seems to have worked on you wonderfully. I alluded to the Iraqi situation, not terrorism. That connection was driven home-at least to you-by the administrations "talking points" memo stating that whenever you mention Iraq to mention terrorism shortly thereafter. Judging from your previous post's, idon't think you need to be convinced of that, seeing as how your comments give you away as a "dyed in the wool" republican or, in laymans terms, a lost cause or brain dead.

 

Yes, I agree - we're supposed to think and to reason.
(when I used the word think - I really meant to say "reason").
It's when our decisions are informed by emotion only - that is when trouble
starts.

 

Ah there you go twisting again. I demand you withdraw your false accusation!

 

By that logic, then a man who kills his whole family before blowing his own head off is then a noble freedom fighter in your mind, and not a psychopath. We should spend all sorts of time figuring out why he did what he did and changing society so that this kind of thing won't happen.

It's a specious argument.

 

No need to retract...But I am curious...What is the percentage of bonefide "mass murderers" compared with individuals that are responsible with other violent crime i.e. rape, murder armed robbery. I know of or have heard/read of perhaps a dozen "mass murderers" But those who are responsible for other crimes surely out number those who commit "mass murder".

Now, I wonder...Those individuals who commit all those other crimes what political party do they belong to??? I'd be willing to bet that the answer begins with a "dem" and ends with an "ocrat"

 

No. To think is to derive correct conclusions from data. Thinking and emotions are not related, and the idea that in order to think one need divorce one's self from emotion is false, borne of too many Star Trek reruns.

Animals operate on instinct, and many do demonstrate rudimentary reasoning capability. But to my knowledge, nobody's proven that animals have emotions (with the possible exception of the apes that have learned rudimentary sign language for communication with humans). Lacking a common language, such an assertion is unprovable.

No. It is our ability to *retain* our emotion and our empathy for other beings while still reasoning that makes us human. When we begin arguing a case and omitting emotion and empathy, other beings become mere objects, and horrific consequences ensue. Hitler's Final Solution was a perfect example of a completely rational, logical response to a given problem, if you neglect the humanity of those the solution was to be applied to.

(and yes, I know I've just invoked Godwin's Law, but I have a feeling it won't be enforced here)

 

No, what we're arguing about is what the root cause is. You and Beastt both try to have it both ways - the attacks are unjustifiable, but the root cause is US foreign policy. But that's flawed logic - either the cause is US policy, in which case the attackers are mere 'instruments of fate' bringing the US its just desserts, or the attackers are criminals whose actions cannot be justified. There is no middle ground.

 

I never said that decisions should be informed by emotion *only* - that's your assumption. Beastt and you have asserted that reasoning means *abandoning* emotion - that way lies the path to hell, wherein anything can be justified because human concerns of innocence and compassion are thrown out the window.

Truly human reasoning incorporates both - it's a harder road, but it is the only way to arrive at a conclusion that is both morally and logically sound.

 

Beastt, thanks for the laugh... This is truly funny work on your part and time consuming too. I'm glad you took the time to dig these up. However, I find these remarks to be completely civilized compared to some of the shit that is being said on the streets of New York by your constituents. So, I’m sorry you are still confused. Oh and I still don't believe your little story.

What I am most puzzled by is when asked to supply just one shred of evidence that you are your own party…just One miniscule post saying something positive about the Republican party and you can't deliver. But you have time to glean through my posts and find some of my funny quotes? I...We can only come to the conclusion that you are simply a Liberal Democrat in denial. You are ashamed of your party and you hide behind this facade of being of no particular party. Like your constituents, you don’t take ownership or condemn the horrible behavior of you protestors, you instead try to play the poor little innocent. Yes, instead of commenting with separate point of view from a no particular party perspective, you go an snip my words and try to make your feeble point. How sad you continue to be ashamed of your party. Your story could be believable if....all your post didn't mirror the democratic position

 

I never suggested that one should abandon emotion - what I told you was that thinking (reasoning) controls our emotions.

 

You are correct I don't think it has much to do with the invasion of Iraq. My point is....Russia, Germany and France should have made some brownie points with muslim extremist terrorist accross the globe by failing to support OUR efforts in Iraq. No country is safe from these idiots. I know there are many different organizations but the same theme...Terror. If you cave in to these bubba's they see weakness. You show them weakness, they target you to get what they want period.

 

Beastt said:

Key words: "Put those emotions aside".

I refuted that assertion, and then you refuted my assertion. Therein lies your 'suggestion' that one should abandon emotion. If (as you're now apparently claiming) it wasn't your intent to claim that one should abandon emotion, then there was no point to your post.

For someone championing logical rigor and reasoning, you're not exhibiting much of it.

 

But only in a sane reasonable person.

 

round and round we go....I see lim's got his pretzel logic fired up again

 

No, you're waffling again :

Message 639 posted by me : read it.

"To think, is to control our emotions.
Animals operate on emotion - humans (are supposed) to think.
Of course high stress situations make us emotional - but it is the ability to think to control these emotions that makes us human."

I don't see anywhere, under any post, assigned to me, did I use YOUR words,
"Put those emotions aside".

Message 639 is clear and concise.

 

Sure does suck when someone tries to 'change' your words. Nice to see someone giving you a little of your own medicine.

 

Waffling?! Again?!! WTF? What are you on?

As is my post, if you'd read it - as I said, if that's the *only* meaning you meant it to have, there was no point in even making the post. But the fact that you were trying to refute my assertion is implicit in the fact that you posted at all.

In other words, your actions and your words contradict each other. As I'm coming to realize, this is consistent for you - you're doing the same thing with trying to say that the 9/11 attacks are unjustified, then go on to say that the root cause is US foreign policy.

Take a critical thinking course. Please.

 

message 639 is clear.
Your use of the phrase is "if that's the only.........." is your attempt to interpret words that require no interpretation.
639 is clear and consise - it is your attempt to put an interpretation on 639
that is wrong.

Message 639 says nothing about actions or Sept 11th.

To clarify exactly the words used here is 639 as I posted it :

"To think, is to control our emotions.
Animals operate on emotion - humans (are supposed) to think.
Of course high stress situations make us emotional - but it is the ability to think to control these emotions that makes us human."

There is no mention of 9/11 as you contend - nor is there any usage of the word action in message 639.

 

No, by my logic you might want to look into why the man did what he did before you automatically proclaim that he was a psychopath. That's all I'm saying - that you need to look into reasons rather than jumping to conclusions. And when you look for them, you should do so from the standpoint of looking for some kind of logic, even failed logic, rather than from the standpoint of attempting to justify your own emotional rage.