Cynicism

Ill, your argument sounds like the same one I use to beat down the freaky left-wing prats that infest the local universities - the ones who still harbour delusions that Capitalism is deeply evil and that under Socialism there'd be no poverty, no hatred, just free love, sex and lentils.

However, I have to agree with insomnomaniac. Quit sounding so pretentious and you might catch more people's ears. I only read your post this last time at [i]all[/i] because someone quoted it in a further post.

ill rich, are you a second year philosophy/sociology student by any chance?

No, he just tripped over the Nietzsche display on his way to the coffee bar in Borders.

please, lord, don't let him discover chomsky!!

Disx man, I feel your pain.

I used to think about social injustice all the time. I used to want to change things. I used to be naive.

The thing I realized is that there's nothing I could do to change anything. But I could change things for myself. I learned to accept that the world is not fair and never will be.

Well, like Aurelius said: Save enough money to get the fuck out of Houston. See the world before you've become jaded with it.

Basically, stop worrying about the rest of the world and do something for yourself before your lying in a box underneath the ground.

schopenauer hume malthus . . . taboo philosphers.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by insomnomaniac [/i]
[B]holy crap. ill Rich, i still think you're completely full of shit.[/B][/QUOTE] Like a sledghammer on my cerebrum, you are.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by disx [/i]
[B]"Without a winner there is no excitement."

Bullshit. [/B][/QUOTE]

What do you want out of life?

Money? Money is only valuable if there is a limited amount. For you to be rich, someone must be poor.

YOUR POST CALLED THE TERRORISTS BEHIND 9/11 "HEROS" BECAUSE THEY ADDED EXCITEMENT TO THE WORLD.

But why was that exciting? The Arab world got one over on the United States. Classic underdog claiming victory over the superpower. In the attack, it was clear that there was a winner and a loser.

Explain to me how there can be excitement without winners and losers.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by moe.ron [/i]
[B]ill rich, are you a second year philosophy/sociology student by any chance?[/B][/QUOTE]

I've been a philosophy student since birth.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Fucko [/i]
[B]The thing I realized is that there's nothing I could do to change anything. But I could change things for myself. I learned to accept that the world is not fair and never will be.[/B][/QUOTE]

[i]Ye of little faith...[/i]

Everything you do changes everything. Look for the small victories.

The fact that the world ISN'T fair, IS fair. It's fair for no one.

Yeah, Fucko, I know what you mean, I just get in my little bouts of depression and shit and like to bitch and moan. Anyhow... I'm on a high right now, let's see how long it lasts.

Rich - Excitement cos it gave people something to talk about. "Oh, did you know anyone there?" "Yeah, my cousin was there, blah blah blah" or "Man, so what were you doing on 9/11? Do you remember?" "Yeah, it's so clear, I can remember everything blah blah blah."

It was our generations JFK assassination. Or at least it seems to be for a lot of people. For me, I didn't really give a shit. Stuff like that happens all over the world constantly, we're just so sheltered from it.

Anyhow... It's not cos someone won, it's cos something -happened-. People died, it was unusual, it was surreal, it was unexpected, it was like a movie.. It made life exciting, if not scary. I couldn't care less about the arab world scoring a 'victory' against us, and certainly most of America would be somewhat offended by that. The reason they got any excitement though, was for a completely different reason.

And I suppose the competition thing is correct, it's just we've got a shitty version of it. Give me REAL survival competition. Life or death. Primitive. That kind of stuff. Not this trying to get money crap to 'survive'. It's just so... fake. Boring.

I don't want money. Money would be nice, but it's hardly my goal. I just want to feel like I've LIVED... But I'm having trouble with that. And it hardly has anything to do with competing. Going out on the weekends, getting smashed and partying and all that... Hardly 'competition', yet it's certainly exciting, for at least some people.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ill Rich [/i]
[B]I've been a philosophy student since birth.
[/B][/QUOTE]

There was a young man from Stamboul
Who soliloquized thus to his tool:
"You took all my wealth,
And you ruined my health,
And now you won't [i]pee[/i], you old fool."

BTW, wouldn't Chomsky pretty much HATE ill Rich? I mean... ill Rich is Mr Go-American-Imperialism here, and Chomsky is pretty much Mr. Ultra anti-Imperialism. Don't think they'd get along... Or maybe I missed something.

Anyhow, yeah, I made a comment before about Rich & Nietzsche. Basically said what Rohan just said, heh.

no, you're right...chomsky would hate him, but he wouldn't necessarily hate chomsky. but i guess my point was that there's nothing i hate more in the world than a chomsky disciple, especially a recently converted, fanatical one. it's a total cult of personality with ol' noam...wouldn't you agree?

I wouldn't really know, although from what I've read of his stuff, he seems like a reasonable fellow to me. Then again, this isn't the first time I've heard people upset about Chomsky sock-puppets or the like... I suppose I've yet to run into what you're talking about, and you're referring to people that read his stuff then go "OMGSORIET IMUST CRUSAED1!11!"......?

Or am I lost?

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by disx [/i]
[B]Rich - Excitement cos it gave people something to talk about. "Oh, did you know anyone there?" "Yeah, my cousin was there, blah blah blah" or "Man, so what were you doing on 9/11? Do you remember?" "Yeah, it's so clear, I can remember everything blah blah blah."
[/B][/QUOTE]

Why did it give people something to talk about?

They thought they were invincible, but they were proved wrong. THEY LOST.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by disx [/i]
[B]It was our generations JFK assassination.
[/B][/QUOTE]

JFK wasn't excitement, it was depression. There was no clear victor.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by disx [/i]
[B]Stuff like that happens all over the world constantly, we're just so sheltered from it.
[/B][/QUOTE]

THERE HAS [b]NEVER[/b] BEEN A TERRORIST ACT THAT KILLED OVER 3,000 PEOPLE IN ONE ACT ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by disx [/i]
[B]Give me REAL survival competition. Life or death. Primitive.
[/B][/QUOTE]

I don't think you want that. Still do? Move to Indonesia. What's that? You don't have the money? Hmmm... give away all your possesions. You can get government aid and be set up in public housing. The ghetto. There you can go back to caveman times; it's life or death.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by disx [/i]
[B]Going out on the weekends, getting smashed and partying and all that... Hardly 'competition', yet it's certainly exciting, for at least some people.
[/B][/QUOTE]

[b]The Junkie[/b]

Is it really exciting to you? Or does it just numb the pain? Or is the excitement you get received from BEATING reality and slipping away for a few precious hours? You certainly defeated the real world, at least for the time being.

Disx, you could stand to be a little bit happier. The world isn't ALL evil.

It gave them something to talk about cos it was something NEW. In a sense, we 'lost', but as I said, if you want to really get down to it, competition does play a part in a lot of that, but it still isn't the -only- source for excitement. The competition I'm sick of is business and money types of competition.

"THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A TERRORIST ACT THAT KILLED OVER 3,000 PEOPLE IN ONE ACT ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD."

LOL. Forget Hiroshima and Nagasaki, oh grand student of History?

Indonesia thing - That's not what I meant. I didn't clarify, I suppose. Anyway, what you suggested is still the same thing we got here, it's just 'safer' here. Which isn't what I was getting at...

Well, I don't really get involved in it too much, but yes, it is exciting. Why? Cos it's something new. And then once you've done it, it's still fun cos it's something different from the norm. It's not about beating anything. Sorry, but your little pet theory is flawed.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by disx [/i]
[B]I... I suppose I've yet to run into what you're talking about, and you're referring to people that read his stuff then go "OMGSORIET IMUST CRUSAED1!11!"......?

Or am I lost? [/B][/QUOTE]

no, those are exactly the people i'm talking about. last august, i went to a "teach-in" about the war, and he was one of the speakers. i totally appreciated the wisdom and knowledge he shared, but i could live several lives without all of boston's "intellectuals" running around with chomsky quotes on sandwich boards, harassing people as they're trying to eat their lunch.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by disx [/i]
[B]

"THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A TERRORIST ACT THAT KILLED OVER 3,000 PEOPLE IN ONE ACT ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD."

LOL. Forget Hiroshima and Nagasaki, oh grand student of History?B][/QUOTE]

for the thousandh time HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI WERE NOT TERRORISTS ACTS!

if we did it out of the blue for no clear reason, then yes it was a terrotist act and we were at WAR with JAPAN we did it becasue they WOULD NOT surrender, and dont say they were considering surrendering before becasue if they were they would have after the first bomb not the second

Bane's right. We told them we were going to go buck wild on them if they didn't surrender. They knew it was coming.

"for the thousandh time HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI WERE NOT TERRORISTS ACTS!"

It was still an act of violence against civilians and not any sort of military target whatsoever.

"for no clear reason"

Sept 11 was done for a very clear reason, during a war (hey, they've declared Jihad against us numerous times, we just never paid attention), yet it's called terrorism.

"dont say they were considering surrendering before becasue if they were they would have after the first bomb not the second"

They weren't on their knees yet, but we would have finally gotten them to surrender, without invading Japan's mainland. Many experts have researched this, and even at the time, it was widely held that Japan was quickly falling. The bombs were dropped so we wouldn't have to invade the mainland, or so the official story goes, but that would never have been necessary. I agree they were not quite ready to surrender, but it wouldn't have been long, and the lives lost would not have been as many. Not to mention, killing thousands of civilians, during a war or not, is always and will always be terrorism.

It's just that fun little double standard, where whatever the 'good guys' do can never be terrorism and -anything- the 'bad guys' do is always terrorism.

It's a bunch of bullshit.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by disx [/i]
[B]Forget Hiroshima and Nagasaki, oh grand student of History?
[/B][/QUOTE]

Those attacks were doing a war.

September 11 was carried out by a militia that reigned from various nations. There was no recognized conflict.

Jihad much?

Jihad was declared by Middle Eastern muslims.

No nation claimed a war, just the radicals. There are no borders to attack in that case - just those who harbor the "jihad", and that would be Afghanistan, Iraq, possibly Syria and Iran as well...

So? Just cos there aren't borders doesn't mean there's not a war. Learn to see past all these superficial ways in which we try to define things, and you'll be on your way to becoming a more reasonable and open-minded fellow.

they were radicals just as rich said we cant walk into a country bomb it becasue they have a few terrorists

how would you like it if someone knocked on your door and said that you might have some relation with a terrorists we have to confiscate your house

A few terrorists?
::bitch slap::
How about the nation's oppressive [i]dictator[/i]? You know, the one who violated the 17 UN treaties?

not every single arab is a terrorists is what im saying disx is acting like saudi arabia declared war on us

No, I'm acting like the terrorists declared war on us.

They did. And they attacked. We just ignored them, cos we thought we were so big and bad and scary. Apparently not.

"they were radicals just as rich said we cant walk into a country bomb it becasue they have a few terrorists

how would you like it if someone knocked on your door and said that you might have some relation with a terrorists we have to confiscate your house"

Um, excuse me, but that IS happening. And it's totally fucked.

As I just explained, just cos there aren't borders, doesn't mean there's not a war.

disx:

Well, look... everything you do will make a difference to something, whether it be a fart that subtly and imperceptably changes the atmosphere or a humanistic tsunami of your beliefs. See, the thing here is that everything affects everything else, and there is nothing that you do that doesn't matter. I.e., everything you do matters, because it will affect something else which will affect something else which will affect something else, ad naseum/morti/infinitum (until everything blows up, at least). Your arguments about nothing mattering and you not making a difference, anyways? That's bullshit. Your attitude and inaction is one of the causes of the "bad guys" coming first. It's cause and effect, and you're causing what you think is a detrimental effect, with your nonchalance and inaction. General cynicism.

mon.roe:

Chomsky has some good stuff to say, indeed, but it must be taken with a grain of salt. By taking the extreme anti-capitalistic view, he loses most of what objectivity he had to start with, and takes on the extreme oposing view (which is equally bad), instead of finding any "fine line" between the two.

But you're right. The coffeeshop intellectuals need to take a step back, and see the fucking world.

i feel like we've been confusing cynicism and apathy in this thread. while there have been great examples of disx's cynicism, we've mostly been commenting on his apathy. so let me be clear: be cynical. it's the very root of democracy. apathy, however, turns you into a "sitting duck." it's like, if you're not willing to do anything, i tend to turn a deaf ear on your complaints.

but kitty's right...by discussing these kinds of issues, you are actually doing something. it's just when you end a very intelligent argument with "the bad guys always win...blah" i say to myself, boofuckinghoo. are ya pickin' up what i'm puttin' down?

i smell what you're cooking.

I'm setting the table and polishing the good siver.

Well, it was originally about cynicism, but the cynicism led to apathy, I suppose. Makes sense, to me, at least...

Anyhow - how great is this:

[url=http://www.thestar.ca/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1051643351295&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968705899037] US troops fire into Iraqis protesting over US troops firing into Iraqi protestors.[/url]

Pro-Iraqi propaganda pundits politicizing

[QUOTE]A few terrorists?
::bitch slap::
How about the nation's oppressive dictator? You know, the one who violated the 17 UN treaties?[/QUOTE]

aurelius, go look up how many UN resolutions the US and Israel, either together or separately, have violated.

so are we going to go invade every nation with an oppressive dictator? good fucking luck.

i never knew terrorism is simply defined as "for no good reason." but you learn something new every day.

Yeah, I love it.

Iraq is violating the UN so we must punish them and if that requires violating the UN, then so be it!

Haaaaaaaaaaaaahahaha.

I wonder if the invasion of Iraq qualifies as an act of international terrorism. Bet it does.

Noononoononnoo.......... See, countries with real armies can't be terrorists, only poor countries can be terrorists.

Fucking class war, sir. It's all about money, after all.

ill Rich? your thoughts, sir?

this is like CNN crossfire, only without tucker carlson.

It's like a reverse of anything on TV where liberals get to square off with conservatives. Typically, the conservatives have a basic grasp on what they're talking about and the liberal is a fucking nitwit. Well, here we have it the other way around.

The exception to that, would be Bill Maher's show on HBO. The few episodes I've caught, I've quite thoroughly enjoyed. I frickin' loooooooooove that black guy that's always on there. (Or he was on the 3 episodes I've seen) He's fucking awesome. He talks VERy fast and uses lots of big words and just gives this intense death stare to the table in front of him, moving his hands around as he talks. It's fucked up, but way cool and he has awesome viewpoints.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by disx [/i]
[B]Just cos there aren't borders doesn't mean there's not a war.[/B][/QUOTE]

Indeed. But a Nation vs. a Relgion is very tricky.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by bane [/i]
[B]they were radicals just as rich said we cant walk into a country bomb it becasue they have a few terrorists
[/B][/QUOTE]

The exception: The government supports, harbors, and does not make any attempt to stop the terrorists.

Tony Blair's England is safe because he does not want the IRA.

Afghanistan was doomed because they would not turn over Bin Laden.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by disx [/i]
[B]Iraq is violating the UN so we must punish them and if that requires violating the UN, then so be it!
[/B][/QUOTE]

Iraq is being punished for many reasons.

1) They are not an ally of the US. (This alone is not enough)
2) They have oil. (This is will magnify any mistake they make)
3) They violated the UN. (This will lead to economic sanctions)
4) They have chemical weapons and are starting to build neuclear weapons. (This is enough to jusify an attack)
5) There are terrorists in the country. (This will get the public behind the movement, and an attack will commence)

[QUOTE]4) They have chemical weapons and are starting to build neuclear weapons. (This is enough to jusify an attack)
5) There are terrorists in the country. (This will get the public behind the movement, and an attack will commence)
[/QUOTE]

prove this.

acctually he cant but there are documents and pictures of hussein holding triggers and detonation devices in which he said that he hopes one day to but put on a nuclear warhead

Yeah, I saw the footage. Saddam was holding warhead triggers and bragging that the U.S. would pay. This was a few months ago, I think.
Those triggers were fake.

but still he had intensions since the 90s to get nukes

Even if he got them, he wouldn't use them.

It would result in the annihilation of his country and all his power and his life. No government would use nukes, unless it was inevitable that they were to be conquered, then, as a last resort ,they would. But when there are other options, it would not happen, thanks to MAD.

Unless of course, the rulers of the country are fanatics or truly insane. Saddam is neither of those.

WHAT!!

he has dreamed FOR YEARS to use nukes. hes even said that if he can get nukes he would use them

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by insomnomaniac [/i]
[B]prove this. [/B][/QUOTE]

During the Cold War the United States SOLD Iraq chemical weapons! The US knows they have them because they SOLD them!

Al Quedia leaders have ALREADY been caught in Iraq and a few have been turned over from Syria who said they fled from Iraq.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by insomnomaniac [/i]
[B]No government would use nukes, unless it was inevitable that they were to be conquered[/B][/QUOTE]

It wasn't inevitable that the US would be conqured, but they used them.

That argument holds ZERO weight. The US is the ONLY country to use nukes and all the scenearios you present weren't in existance the time the US used them.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ill Rich [/i]
[B]During the Cold War the United States SOLD Iraq chemical weapons! The US knows they have them because they SOLD them! [/B][/QUOTE] Right out of Bill Hicks' mouth.

i would buy wmd if someone asked me to, wouldn't you?