Questions about Iraq...

[Jeffy-CanCon]

"It was "scientifically proven" that blacks were inferior to whites in reasoning capacity in order to justify slavery."

So you are saying you don't beleive in the modern scientific method? You don't beleive in natural selection. You don't beleive the moon is made of rock and not cheese, you don't beleive the earth circles the sun. You don't beleive that people are made of cells and are instead composed of the four humors. You beleive that the center of the earth is hollow and not composed of a molten core.

I knew liberals were stupid, but this takes the cake

YOU don't believe in evolution, per your own sig.

I think you missed NJPaint's point. The simple truth is that it is nigh impossible to prove scientifically prove social phenomena. There is too much variety in human societies, and too many unconscious prejudices for any such study to be definitive. It is too easy to produce a study that "proves" anything you want.

[TheTramp]

YOU don't believe in evolution, per your own sig.

I think you missed NJPaint's point. The simple truth is that it is nigh impossible to prove scientifically prove social phenomena. There is too much variety in human societies, and too many unconscious prejudices for any such study to be definitive. It is too easy to produce a study that "proves" anything you want.

Are you actually trying to use logic and reason to argue with this guy?

Good luck.

You must be one of those liberals who are trying to ruin this beautiful empire GW's building.

[SGTKennedy]

I think it would be the greatest thing in the world if we were in Iraq for oil. Because WMDs are pretty damn frightening.

[Kevmaster]

Is the war in Iraq about oil? I think Yes and No. It's not all about oil, certainly, but economics is always a major consideration in foreign policy and military operations. Iraq was one of a number of countries with WMD programs, and support for international terrorists - and not the worst of either. But even of those countries, several have oil resources, and Iraq was the only one attacked.

First, Afghanistan was also attacked..they were a little worse on the terrorism-meter than Iraq was.

Second, There were over 15 UNSC resolutions on Iraq, There are ZERO (to my knowledge) on North Korea or Iran.

Finally, NK may well already have Nuclear weapons, we arn't gunna go after them nearly as agressively when they could destroy Seol or somewhere in Japan..possibly Las Angeles

[Rooster]

"simple truth is that it is nigh impossible to prove scientifically prove social phenomena. There is too much variety in human societies, and too many unconscious prejudices for any such study to be definitive. It is too easy to produce a study that "proves" anything you want."

It is very easy to prove something based on response to stimuli. A paplovian response isn't a social reaction, and studies have proven that humans begin to rely on instinct to fill in gaps of conscious thought under extreme stress. Its the reason for repetitive action training. Its to get people to deny an insticnt they have under stress. Its why a noob automatically ducks when a paintball is shot at them. Emotional state under stress is easily measurable. Could women be trained, or given medications to balence out hormonal levels (becuase that is easily measurable and has been proven to be elevated in women under stress) to be the same as men, emotionally, under stress? More than likely, but they arn't. They are given the same training as men.

This is isn't specious socio-political science. This is hard fact. Women arn't the same as men. Of course most of us knew this for quite some time.

[FactsOfLife]

Women arn't the same as men. Of course most of us knew this for quite some time.

Whoa that's gonna piss off the Rainbow Coalition...

[Jeffy-CanCon]

I think it would be the greatest thing in the world if we were in Iraq for oil. Because WMDs are pretty damn frightening.

No argument that WMDs are pretty scary stuff.

First, Afghanistan was also attacked..they were a little worse on the terrorism-meter than Iraq was.

Second, There were over 15 UNSC resolutions on Iraq, There are ZERO (to my knowledge) on North Korea or Iran.

Finally, NK may well already have Nuclear weapons, we arn't gunna go after them nearly as agressively when they could destroy Seol or somewhere in Japan..possibly Las Angeles

Again, no argument. I think that the UNSC should have passed a few resolutions against both those other countries (and more besides), but my international political influence is lacking, at the moment.

Isn't Haliburton building an oil pipeline through Afghanistan now? Down from Kazahkstan to pakistan, IIRC. My memory is fuzzy, and I don't have time to look this stuff up on my coffee break.

It is very easy to prove something based on response to stimuli. A paplovian response isn't a social reaction, and studies have proven that humans begin to rely on instinct to fill in gaps of conscious thought under extreme stress. Its the reason for repetitive action training. Its to get people to deny an insticnt they have under stress. Its why a noob automatically ducks when a paintball is shot at them. Emotional state under stress is easily measurable. Could women be trained, or given medications to balence out hormonal levels (becuase that is easily measurable and has been proven to be elevated in women under stress) to be the same as men, emotionally, under stress? More than likely, but they arn't. They are given the same training as men.

This is isn't specious socio-political science. This is hard fact. Women arn't the same as men. Of course most of us knew this for quite some time.

I agree women and men are not the same (vive la difference!). There are differences in terms of size, body chemistry, and of course reproductive organs. But I simply wanted to support NJPaint's point that studies of differences in men/women or racial groups can be tainted. The studies you mention, did they get subjects from the full range of humanity, or just middle-class western students? The differences in behaviour may be cultural (learned from birth) rather than genetic.

BTW - how do they measure emotions? Is there a smile-o-meter, or a sadness index I haven't heard of? I know they can measure physiological phenomena like heart rates, blood pressure, and hormonal spikes. But I've never heard of anyone actually measuring emotions.

You must be one of those liberals who are trying to ruin this beautiful empire GW's building.

I'm not a liberal. I just don't like to see poorly made arguments, from either side.

[Rooster]

"But I've never heard of anyone actually measuring emotions. "

They measure reaction to stimuli. Flinching is an emotional response. People flinch out of fear. Babies flinch. A barking dog will cause a child to jerk even if they have never been bitten. A gunshot does the same thing to most people. These things are easy to measure. They can be logically extended to relevent, measurable situations which is what the scientific method is all about.

[Albinonewt]

It was "scientifically proven" that blacks were inferior to whites in reasoning capacity in order to justify slavery.

And it was true!

Problem is, it was true because of the complete lack of opportunity afforded to blacks at the time. They couldn't compete in reasoning and such with whites (on average) because they had had exactly ZERO education and training in reasoning. They lacked even a basic understanding of problem solving because it had been denied to them by the very whites testing them.


Now, given equal situations and opportunities it probably is accurate to say that women are more emotional then men. It's a hormone thing.

[Albinonewt]

BTW - how do they measure emotions? Is there a smile-o-meter, or a sadness index I haven't heard of? I know they can measure physiological phenomena like heart rates, blood pressure, and hormonal spikes. But I've never heard of anyone actually measuring emotions.

Hormonal levels and brain wave patterns to name a couple of ways.


Emotions are definitly measureable.

[Jeffy-CanCon]

Hormonal levels and brain wave patterns to name a couple of ways.

Emotions are definitly measureable

Those are physiological phenomena, and to link them to emotions is an extrapolation, but that's good enough, I guess.


As to blacks having been "scientifically proven" to have been inferior to whites (per the 19th C tests), in your own explanation, you note that the tests were biased and unfair. Thus, nothing was "proven". Which was NJPaint's original point.

[RoadDawg]

I found it interesting what she had to say. Is it a correct view? None of us truely know. There could be a huge variety of reason's for this war. WMD and terrorism are the main covers. What's inside is something we won't know til a few years down the line. I see us doing this to create a presence in the Middle East (even more so then previously). The same type of thing we did pre Vietnam. We are setting up in their market to increase the U.S's power. The U.S has a history of doing this. That is why we are what we are today.

A side question. What is the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists?

[Albinonewt]

As to blacks having been "scientifically proven" to have been inferior to whites (per the 19th C tests), in your own explanation, you note that the tests were biased and unfair. Thus, nothing was "proven". Which was NJPaint's original point.

My point, was that NJPaint's comparison was nonsense. That the comparison of the two different situations is stupid. Yes, the tests were biased and unfair and that's what makes them different from the tests Rooster was talkinga bout. In fact it was the implicit unfairness of the tests that were administered to blacks that invalidates NJPaint's point.

[Trigger_Happy]

I probably shouldn't get myself into this as it's heated already, but I have a quick (EDIT- Make that "not so quick") comment. Many people seem to believe that Bush just decided to attack Iraq for his own personal reasons.

Am I stupid to believe that presidents have more to do than just sit around concocting what they feel like doing next?
Am I wrong in thinking that there must be hundreds of little details on either side of every decision Bush makes daily that makes His life complicated?
Could it be that no matter what he does, he's going to make a lot of people angry and his job is one large complex compromise?

Those are my questions. Answer them how you see fit. I'm not saying that he had no choice to go to war. I have no doubt that another president would not have. But wouldn't that other president most likely have to ignore security risks, compromise economic issues, make a good deal of terrorized Americans unhappy, and turn the blind eye to tons of other little things that would make war a good idea? Granted those are all big guesses.

I just wish people wouldn't view the president's job as so clear cut. Every second grader thinks they could do a better job, so why hasn't anybody done it? Politics ais not as simple as deciding what you individualy think about something. That's citizenship, not politics. You're job is easy. You give bush a pat on the back or a slap in the face. Just don't asume he deserves full credit or blame for that action.

[Willystyle21]

Got beat to it too many damn times to count. Seen it pretty much my entire life. Men use logic to make a decision, women use emotion. Look at the current ways (and numbers) people will commit suicide. Women have a lower suicide rate but a high "attempt" rate. Men have a high suicide rate but a low "attempt" rate. Reason is ways of going though it. Women = drugs = 5 minutes later while crying will call 911. Men = guns = no one is call an ambulance, just a coroner. See my point. Based with a decision that has (really) no second chance if done a certain way, emotional based people will go so far and turn back because they can not face the seriousness of that idea ( death). Some one based with logic, has made up their mind and wil get their no matter what anyone else says about it.


Here is my rant............... I hate this arguement

As for what is this war about. My idea's............... Getting Saddam - this past few decades' Hitler. Getting Osama - not any better. Controling terrorism - getting those 2 will help big. Oil - wont hurt to have more. Here is an idea. Get GW on this forum, and ask him why. I'm pretty sure there are a few more idea's than we can come up with. That is why he has a board full of people to help him make decision's. He is a better pres than Clinton ever was, and he is better than Kerry ever could be. We need a pres who is strong on defense. This country would be a big smoulding crater if we were not.

Another point.............
What you think france and germany would help if we got attacked? They wouldn't go up against who they thought would rule the world if we went down protecting ourselves. Check out "The Law of Armed Conflict" if someone thinks we are a bunch of baby killers running around hording and pillaging to our hearts content over there. Do you think we would be treated even with the slightest respect if we were captured or do you need to here about Nick Berg whom the military held and told to go back to the US, what happened to him. Ask the north veitnamese who held our guys for years after the were captured. Ask Hanoy Jane what she did.

Ask someone what they think about the freedom's and why it is so easy for them the critisize the very thing that keeps that freedom alive.