If you could go back in time, would you stop 9/11?

of course you are...call me a pompous ass and when i ask you to read through my posts you say, "eh, i've read enough...and i'm out of here." thanks for your fairness, Manny!!! please find me one post where i've denigrated someone else here, manny!!! how are you even qualified to tell me what my posts have said when you won't even read the ones in this thread??

call me a pompous ass but ignore the posts where i apologized to RM95 for making assertions that could have been misinterpreted by him and the posts where i told him i understood his points of view....he and I have disagreed a ton, but I doubt seriously he'd call me a pompous ass, Manny. thanks for your limited input here, though. just dropped by to call me an ass, huh? thanks!!! you the man!

 

All this arging over something less tangible than ether. And it all could have be avoided if people had said "Okay, you believe the right answer is x. What if (insert scenario) happened?" instead of saying "YOU BELIEVE X. YOU'RE EVIL/UNCARING/BLACK & WHITE/SIMPLISTIC AND NEED PSYCHOLOGICAL/ETHICAL/THEOLOGICAL COUNSELING!!!!"

BTW, giddyup and Rocketman95, neither of your opinions are black-and-white. Giddyup's is white and Rocketman95's is black. Therefore you both lose and neither of you get any fabulous parting gifts .

 

subatomic...what??? no year's supply of Turtle Wax for giddyup??? no home version of the game for RM95??? man...what a jip!!!

 

i might sound like an evil person, but i wouldn't change it.

 

I bet you would if it was one of your family members. It's easier to answer the question from the outside looking in.

 

Maybe it's just me, but I say change the events of 9/11, and then pose the hypothetical question to the powers that be to increase security, taking what you know of the repurcussions of the attack and applying it to your hypothesis...

 

Hypothetically speaking, I wish this thread had never happened.

 

Oh rats! I needed a new toaster oven or a microwave....

MannyRamirez: If you're not going to bother to read all of the posts, then don't bother to bother us with your ill-formed opinion.
Both you and I only are obliged to respect people's RIGHT to have their own opinion. Nowhere are we compelled to respect their opinion-- whatever it may be. That's why we all can oppose Usama bin Laden.

If I am obnoxious, I'd rather it be about life and death than music, thank you!

Also, at least for RM95 and me, we have a long, storied history of bickering which just has to be factored in. Seems like we can't help it.

 

giddyup: You've said that you are right about this and that others are wrong. You've even questioned the character of those who would disagree with you.

To quote (so I'm not putting words in your mouth):

Are you God? You cannot "know" anything with 100 percent certainty. It is a physical impossibility. It's nice that you have confidence but your assertion that you are right and everyone else is wrong precludes everyone's ability to argue or even disagree with you because you have placed yourself in a position of superiority.

You also have the tendency to attempt to dismiss others by saying they are too young to understand or just don't get it. If I were to dismiss you by saying, "Anyone who believes what you do couldn't possibly be right about anything," or "You are too old and the world has passed you by," you would very likely feel insulted by it so, I understand why Manny said what he said. You do come across as arrogant.

I tend to think that your unwillingness to accept that you COULD be wrong or that there MIGHT be other possibilities makes you appear weaker and less intellegent by the mere suggestion.

The suggestion that you know so much more than the rest of us is more than a little bit insulting.

 

Not God. For sure. I have a birthdate.

Whose character have I questioned? In reading the thread I can't see where I've done that. I jokingly asked RM95 if he was psychotic but that's not a character issue. I didn't know that 100% certainty was a pre-requite for feeling that one is right.

No one is precluded from arguing their point. Just as my point of view is challenged, they should expect theirs to be. That's what this place is for.

Why someone would struggle with a fanciful notion that would restore 3000 dead innocent victims of terror to life and loved ones were it in their power to do so is just simply beyond me.

Others have complicated the matter in an attempt to justify the denial of restoration of life.

I think I have made that assertion about age issues perhaps twice in a couple of years here-- both times in tussles with RM95. Major Shanna got dragged in. Haven too.

This whole arrogance thing is way out of whack. Usually it is Max or me (occasionally others) who are arguing the traditional Christian position against a whole horde of critics coming from many angles. Is not backing down really arrogant? What exactly is the arrogance?

What makes one to appear arrogant? Knowing your own mind? If so then I will embrace arrogance where it fits me. I'm timid about Rockets stuff because I hardly ever get to see them play. I don't shout from the mountaintops about Middle East politics because I don't grasp all of it. The few things I feel I know well and know fully I will staunchly participate-- as you should.

I don't sound off on a lot of topics. I tend to argue a few things into the ground. These are the things that are dear and priceless such as my pro-Life position.

I don't resent criticism of my positions. Why do they? Is it possible that those who resent the criticism are truly arrogant in reality-- feeling their position is beyond criticism? I do defend my position but I don't resent the critique. I attempt to answer it. It's a process. Why can't they just make the argument with taking it all so personally?

You REALLY misrepresent the situation when you characterize me as broadly dismissing someone because of their viewpoint about any one subject. Care to offer proof?

 

im not sure if this was directed at me, but i was directly affected by the events of 911.

my brother and cousin are currently active in the u.s. army.

 

I can't believe someone would tell people on here that they don't value human life.

The truth is that it happened. And nothing really has changed as a result of this event. The people who lost family members were affected and their lives did change, as well as everyone else's. But everyone's life changes everyday. Who is to say a child's father wouldn't have died the next day, or started cheating on his wife. One tragic event does not change the world anymore than everyday events change the world.

If we took this day back, chances are someone would have attacked us later and chances are it would be worse. Hundreds of thousands of people could have died on 9/11 but only 3,000 did. No one thinks it was good and no one will forget it either.

Everyone dies at some point in their life.

 

giddyup: Asserting that you are right dismisses others opinion as wrong. Logically, it has to because if you believe yourself to be right, you have to believe others to be wrong. That's just logic. Furthermore, stating that you are right is placing an absolute on your opinion. You are removing any argument because you are saying that you know the answer.

I'm not talking about knowing your own mind. I know mine as well and I feel like there are often times when I disagree with your assertion that you are right. Where exactly does that leave those of us who disagree with you? Are we wrong? Are we misguided? Are we just not as educated or informed as you?

Your assertion that, in essence, you know better is, by definition, arrogant. If you want to think that, that is certainly your right. However, to place it in context of a persuasive argument is either an attempt to dismiss whoever you are arguing with (and, subsequently, their assertions to the contrary) or it is an attempt to place yourself in a position of authority. Either way, it serves to derail discussion and debate because no discussion can continue if you consider yourself right and, as a result, everyone else wrong on a particular topic.

I don't think anyone would care if you believed that and said so, but using it as a basis for argument is condescending. If you want to argue on a subject, great, but suggesting that I (or anyone else) am wrong when the subject for debate is an opinion makes you come off as pompous.

 

Sorry, Max, I disagree to a degree in regards to the area of agreement between two individuals (those agreed upon individuals being you and me), creating a situation where I find myself not agreeing in the full degree with your recorded statement.

I think that to make hypothetical value judgements about history does bring into focus issues with religion.

You state that the hypotheticals makes us God, however even if the premise is somewhat accepted, that is not completely accurate. All it does is give you a choice on whether you want to play the role of God and alter history (along with a pre-determined life, etc). We have discussed a bit before about predestination, free will, etc, and I understand you both agree and disagree with the various concepts involved, however, if you believe in a divine plan it would seem that your choice should always be "no" to changing that plan. In other words, your negation of a positive (meaning created) action would be based upon your faith in an ordered, controlled world that has been planned out.

Further adding to the murkiness is the hypothetical nature of your declarative statement that "we can not assume the role of God." Hypothetically speaking, sure we could. Additionally, faith itself for some is a hypothetical venture, further placing it in at least the vicinity of this argument. The fact that you do not see it as hypothetical is not of issue, as I could find plenty of people - some with "scientific" evidence - who would claim to be 100% sure that time travel is possible. This, then, would not even place the action in the sphere of God, merely, as advanced science/technology.

The irony of me posting about all of this hyopthetical stuff is that my answer to the original and later ammended question would be "none of the above." I reject the question itself.

I do, however, feel that you have placed yourself on somewhat uncertain ground because you have accepted certain parameters. Not that it truly means anything. I am just bored and have not really posted much recently and am mad because this damn DSL installation keeps getting delayed. Oh well, at least we won't be paying for it when it finally gets installed. I do, however, still have the Telocity/Direct TV DSL gateway that they were supposed to send postage and address to be shipped back to them after we canceled our old plan...anyone need one?

I think I will see if I can convince my dog that he doesn't exist.

 

wow, i agree.

 

I really don't understand why you are on my tail.

Doesn't everyone who asserts a position, by definitioin, think they are right? Why do you choose to profile mine as arrogance?

Nowhere have I said literally that I was "right." No one else did either? We just took our stances, criticized others where we see fit and defended our positions when and where necessary.

Why do I stand out?

Mine is the simple-minded argument: return the dead victims to their lives and their loved ones if granted the ability-- end of story.
I challenge the propriety of a position of anyone who concludes differently.

Mrs. JB wants me to leave them in eternal bliss. I say return them to their life on earth; peaceful bliss will come. I would just want to kiss my children goodnight a few thousand more times, thank you!

RM95 would, REGRETTABLY, leave them in their grave because it could have been worse. I prefer to restore them to their families. They did not choose to sacrifice their lives so that we would all be the wiser and the safer.

I'm not sure what your position is, Jeff, but are you arguing it from the standpoint and with the conviction that you are wrong?! I doubt it.

 

Max and this is for Rich-giddy, as well:

I have been thinking about this thread tonight, and I will be man enough to admit that I was wrong. I should have shown more tact than what I did. In the past, when I was stupid and naive, I would have loved to be involved in "discussions" like these, but I realized some time ago that it serves no purpose. I should have just not said anything.

You see, 9-11 is something that I will never get out of my mind just like alot of people. I was thinking on the way home tonight how unreal it was. For the longest time, I didn't want to read this thread, but I did anyway. It bothers me that anyone here would think, even in jest, that another member was happy that innocent people lost their lives. When you make comments like "Are you not human??" or "Some of your answers really leave me confused" or something like that, then what in the hell am I supposed to conclude from that. First of all, just like Jeff has told giddy, err Rich, it is very pompous and contentious to say stuff like that. Plus, I have sensed this "arrogant" and condescending attitude toward the people who don't exactly think like you and giddy. But I let an event that I'll never forget get me upset at some people that I don't even know. So, it's not worth it. For the record, ask anyone here whether it's Jeff, RM95, chievous minniefield, haven, ROXRAN, TheFreak, etc. and they will tell you that it is very rare to see a post from me in a thread like this let alone one that blasts a BBS member.

So, I am sorry that I don't subscribe to your school of thought and I'm also sorry that I got involved in this thread.

To quote the best post in this thread:

My sentiments exactly because I knew it would turn out this way.

 

What does:

<b>I only feel that way about things I know I'm right about</b>

mean then? How can you know you are right but not literally be right?

You stand out because you use the assertion that you are correct as your basis for argument. I agree that we all argue from a position of our opinion, belief, etc. However, I don't argue that I am RIGHT, necessarily. I just argue that my opinion has merit and follows logic. Maybe, you might even be able to see the logic in my argument and agree with it. Maybe not. That is for me to prove through dialogue.

Your opinions are based on philosophies you believe to be concrete and absolute. Because you come from that position, the things that you say and the way that you say them call into question everyone else's credibility, intellegence and character. If your assertions are concrete truths rather than your humble opinion, no one else's opinion really matters.

I want to avoid the subjective argument in this thread because my issue here has less to do with this hypothetical argument than it does with how you argue your points in general.

Your challenge always sounds like some moral questioning. This very statement, that you challenge the "propriety" (or correctness) of anyone who "concludes" (i.e. thinks) differently from you is based upon the supposition that there can be a right or wrong answer to this discussion. In my opinion, there is no right or wrong answer in debate, only opinion. Concluding that you are right because of your belief invalidates the beliefs of anyone who would challenge you.

You are missing my point. You are suggesting that there can be a right or wrong answer to these debates and arguments we have. In the matter of debate, there can be no right and wrong, only opinion. Now, you may be able to convince me your opinion has enough merit for me to agree, but to make it universally true, you would have to convince everyone. Just like teachers said not to mark multiple choice absolute answers like "never" or "always" because they assume an absolute, making the assumption that your opinion is, indeed, fact and an absolute makes discussion mute.

Your arguments are based on the existence of right and wrong - an absolute that, most of the time, cannot exist in a debate based on opinion. There is nothing wrong with asserting your opinion and your beliefs, but suggesting there is a right or wrong answer to a given argument means that there must be a winner and loser, a superior and and inferior.

Debate isn't really about determining who is right or wrong. It is about seeing the possibilities that present themselves and discussing them based on how you feel and the opinion you carry. It is when someone injects the concept that an opinion is right or wrong that gets people angry. It sounds condescending.

If you want to continue believing you are right, that's up to you, but don't be surprised that if you tell others here that they are wrong based on your opinion that they will get pissed and call you arrogant.

 

JEFF:

The basis for my argument is that it is not in my province, in this hypothetical, to deny those 9/11 victims their right to life.

Even if it means recalling them from paradise. Even if it means losing guarantee of our greater safety. They are not my pawns. As I told Mrs. JB, they are someone's Jeff. She calls that a ploy; I call it someone else's realilty.

That I am "right" (okay I said it once) is my conclusion not my premise. What were the first arguments that I made? It certainly wasn't that "I am right." That slips in there much later.

I chose the words, "I challenge the propriety..." very carefully. I JUST KNEW they would be mis-construed in this manner. That is the process of debate. Whose position is beyond challenge? Certainly mine isn't. Why not the one the refuses to reinstate the dead victims?

If you argue with my position, I assume you think I am wrong whether or not you say so.

In abortion debates, my positiion is constantly criticized for being one that deprives women of their rights. How often am I characterized as wrong for vying to take that choice away. Taking that choice away is, to me, beside the point. I am invoking the rights of the unborn child-- whose legal rights are recognized in other situations-- that others want to so conveniently overlook even if it means death to the unborn.
That unborn child's choice would certainly be TO LIVE. Are abortion proponents daring to deny that logic? Which of the unborn children would not prefer a shot at life?

I could care less if someone thinks I am wrong. In the main, I just stick to the process of argumentation without getting my feathers ruffled because someone thinks I'm wrong. Big deal.

In this particular thread, I have spent far more time buttressing my argument than I have telling people that they are wrong. The two sentences that you have cited are probably the strongest examples of that-- just two passages among the 10 or 12 posts or replies that I've made.


MANNY

It's not stupid or naive to get involved in threads like this. The purpose of the argument is to air the issues not change the participant's mind. Some lurker's mind may be changed by reading the thread. Even one of the participant's mind may be changed down the road by something in the thread that had a latent impact.

I think that this is part of the frustration that people have in arguing with me in this forum. People expect too much from this; I don't. They expect to change minds on the spot. I don't expect to change minds among the posters so I don't get all pissed when I don't.

I expect people that I am arguing with, and they with me, to think I am wrong and never for a minute do I think of them as arrogant for thinking that way... it's what I would expect. Somehow, though, I am not granted that same license.

I NEVER EXPECT to change someone's mind directly. I'm in it just to air the issues. Sometimes it dips into being personal-- too personal. But that's just a bump in the road. It is supposed to be fun. It can be if you don't expect too much.

All of the things you indicate that irked you about this discussion are things that I never said. I never said that anyone was happy that 3000 people died. I did say that, hypothetically, they should be restored to life because we have no right to trade them for our own safety and security and to preclude potentially greater loss.

That is EXACTLY what this argument is about. Some people couldn't bring themselves to the position of hypothetically re-instating lost innocent lives by the figurative snapping of their fingers.

MadMax, treeman and I are bewildered by that. I can't believe that others are not equally bewildered.