Then explain Japan and Africa? One country with ZERO natural resources, and other other with arguably even more than the USA?
Sam...no he won't. I am not talking to him until he apologizes for calling me a liar, repeatedly, and being proven wrong...whereupon he disappeared...but if you want to see it happen, throw these numbers at him: Canada Canada had a greater enlistment rate than the United States in both wars in Europe, and was engaged in each much longer. They lost a much higher percentage of their population, and gave ( as opposed to sold or traded for bases) a much higher percentage of their national production to the war effort in Europe. Despite having less than 10% of the US's population at the time, Canada comitted more than 3 troops for every 10 American...or a more than 3 to 1 ratio. Canada never participated in slavery, but was in fact the end destination for American slaves trying to flee their altrusitic nation via the Underground Railroad. A similar exodus occured during the 1960s and 70s when young US males left thw US to come to Canada to avoid having to enforcable export US altruism in South East Asia. A Canadian invented the concept of UN Peace Troops, and won a Nobel Peace Prize for the effort, and to this day Canada remains among the highest participants in UN peacekeeping despite having no viable interests overseas, nor being anywhere near among the more populous nations. ( The country itslef has roughly the same population of NYC). On the flip side, when other nations are not directly threatened, as in WWI, WWII, Korea, Gulf War I, etc...Canada has never once excercised any kind of aggressive military action. Canadians have kicked in when others needed them to, and have never sought to gain in any way from that sacrifice once the fighting was over. Canadians rank among the world's leaders in per capita annual individual contributions to charity, and the last study I saw in this ranked Canadians only behind Swittzeralnd in this respect. It goes on...but the basic message is that, relatively speaking, Canadians contribute more in times of crisis for other nations than the US, but never seek to gain from those actions, and once the crisis is over they return to their own country and leave others alone. The US has more people and money to contribute, but Candians give more and expcect less per person. That is altruism. They also don't have any where near the splotchy human rights record on the domestic front. You can make similar arguments for Switzeralnd, most of the Scandanavian countries, etc. You can argue, perhaps, that Canadians benefit from being under the US's arm, to a degree, but that doesn't take away from what Canadians do when they don't have to, nor that they expect nothing in return, which is not true of the US. The US is better than Canada in various ways, but altruism is surely not one of them.
OK, John, I hate to start off this way, but altruism is a relative term. I don't want to turn this into a catalogue of horrors, but you could go about this in a number of ways: Slavery, genocide of native Americans, pretty much anything to do with manifest destiny ever, etc., etc, etc. Not too altruistic in any sense Then of course, you could approach it in a social way. Wouldn't any European social welfare state be considered more altruistic than the US, such as Denmark? Its citizens willfully redistribute their income in the name of equality. Capitalism isn't altruistic, its based on the exact opposite. And then of course, you can find any number of bombed Cambodians, Iraqis, a-bombed japanese, firebombed german civilians, etc who would also take issue. Is the US altruistic for a giant empire? probably more so than Rome, or Chinggis Khan I guess, though probably less than the British. I don't understand how you can be so certain about it. EDIT: MacBeth did a much better job of explaining this than me and made a pretty definitive case.
This is a good question. What am I arguing for? It would seem that I'm defending these radicals, but all I'm trying to do is get people to open their minds a little. It would be easy for us to call these people names, disregard them as monsters... but they are people too like you and me. What makes someone decide to strap a bomb to themselves? They aren't just tricked into doing it, they aren't all unknowing children. There are adults, older women, men... just ordinary citizens that decide to do this. Terrorism isn't because of a few crazy people, its a disease inherent in the society. Lots of its citizens have bought into it. Does this make them evil? They see this as the only way to fight because they are outnumbered and outpowered by Israel and the U.S. And lets not lie to ourselves, the U.S is bias towards the Israelis. This is why two planes went into the world trade center, because of our support of the Israelis. Soon after September 11th, Rudy Guiliani came over to my school and gave a speech about how these guys crashed into the towers because they hate our freedoms, and they hate the rights that we give to women... Get Real! This is ridiculous. They could care less. They said themselves that they did this specifically because of our support of Israel. Guiliani paints a picture that these guys HATE us and our only option is to destroy whoever these "terrorists" are. This is the view "get tough on terror" but when you see all these palestinian citizens dancing in the street after 9/11, you must realize that this situation is part of something bigger. There is a lot of animosity towards us from muslims all over the world... getting tough on terror is the banner we went under in Iraq. Do we feel safer now? We killed more than 2,000 Iraqi citizens... almost as many people who died at the WTC, does this make us even? We didn't find any weapons of mass destruction (the primary reason we went in on the first place) But still the Bush administration says it was worth it because now "terror" has one less place to live. Did 200 American soldiers have to die in order for that to happen? Studies show that the war in Iraq has dramatically increased the hatred towards America in muslims around the world... but we'd much rather think of that day when we saw Iraqis dancing in the street... nevermind that they hate our guts right now as well as the rest of the Muslim world. What I'm trying to say is we need to open our minds to different solutions rather than destroying the opposition, or getting tough on terror because these methods are not succesful and only worsen the situation. Terrorism is a mindset that has been created within these muslim societies... there's a reason for it... they're not just crazies, these are actual people that somehow got driven to this amazing extreme. Just try to put yourself in their shoes and think about it. What brings a 20 year old women to kill herself along with some Israelis in a disco or a mall? It is easy for us to dismiss her as a monster, or brainwashed but then we'd be dodging the issue and solve nothing. How are we going to get tough on terror without having to get tough on the whole of the Palistinean people? Its hard to debate and discuss on a BBS. This difficult issues are hard enough to discuss in person but on a BBS its relatively impossible to get to some kind of answer so I'm going to stop arguing because I see it as useless. Probably the best thing I can do to support my point is not to argue on this BBS but to pose questions. I just ask that someone consider these questions seriously. Its scary to think of Hitler as an actual person, but we can learn so much more about solving a problem rather than dismissing him as a "monster" or "inhuman."
What is so hard to understand? I don't approve at all of using missiles to attack Hamas leaders in a crowded area. I do support them being targets of assasination though. Clear? DD
No, there is a definition for altruism, and we both know the meaning. Nobody said that America was perfect, and it is LUDICROUS to judge the actions of the past by today's standards. That is like saying that Jesse Owens was an average sprinter because he only ran 9.5 in a 100 yard dash. When early Americans were committing the sins of genocide and slavery, the world was a far more savage place. America has led the world away from totalitarianism and despotism. It was the blood of our culture (U.S., Great Brit., Canada, Australia) that created freedom for people in Japan, Europe, Russia, etc. We are a constantly evolving culture that is leading this world FINALLY to a lasting peace. When men like Saddam Hussein are no longer allowed to rule countries, and Democracy is finally an option for all peoples in this world, do you really expect countries to fight one another? We both know that two representative Democracies have never officially gone to war. Capitalism is not altruistic? Really? I am speechless. Our capitalism has provided the world with the most productive farms, the most innovative medicines, and technology that is unparalleled. Every day across this planet, it is mainly American innovation that helps people live healthier, longer, and more productive lives. Capitalism is FAR MORE productive than socialism. No system is perfect, and there will always be poor people in all systems, but excessive government handouts don't equal compassion. Instead, Socialism breeds laziness. Go ahead and write down that the Iraqis, Japanese, and Germans people today did not profit from our modifications to their culture. You can try, but you will just look silly. Oh, so you "guess" that America is kinder that Khan's Mongolia? LOL Sam, that is weak.
The majority of Israel attacks took place in a fashion you do not support, I just didn't want you to contradict your thread on Israeli ignorance. Current demands from Israel-- the Palestinians must regain control of militant organizations and end all attacks. Palestinians receive-- Pull-out of Israel troops to zones held 3 years ago. A lift on the travel ban and approximately 15,000 new work visas along with easing of restrictions at checkpoints. I think Israel was feeling major pressure from the US, thus all the concessions so soon after the intense violence. The Palestinian authority has nothing new to accomplish-- just one of their original "goals" ending militant attacks. This truce should last about a week--maybe.
Quote: Canada never participated in slavery, Quote: The treatment of slaves in Canada was just as severe as their treatment in the United States. They were punished when they disobeyed their master and in some cases they were whipped, tortured or murdered. Eventually laws were passed which made killing slaves as serious a crime as killing a freedman. Slavery in Canada did not flourish economically as to slavery in America. However, the two countries did have similarities as to those who supported slavery, and as to those who opposed it. Quote: Canadians did not refer to the term "slave", as it was potentially controversial with the United States, and therefore referred to the term "servant." A popular impression that the first slaves in Canada were introduced into the Maritimes Provinces by the Loyalists, in 1783, is false. Historical records indicated that slavery was established in Quebec, by the French, through a royal mandate issued by Louis XIV in 1689. Slim...Canada never had slavery. Never legalized it, never practiced it with authority, and even the Europeans who ran the region before Canada existed didn't legalize the status of human beings as property in this land. So to say that the Europeans who ran the region before Canada existed had incidents of poor treatment of servants, which is not slavery (ie the euquivalence of humans as property without rights) imeans the same as saying Canada practiced slavery is silly.
Whoa! what happened to absolute truths? Your argument is mobile. Its changing too much, stick with a set of beliefs and go with it. Right now it seems like your only set belief is "America is the greatest" and you'll argue anything in order to support America. Don't compare morals to a time set by a sprinter. You say its ludicrous to judge the actions of the past by today's moral standards... thats what absolute morals do. Now you're starting to sound like me! I believe you're starting to contradict yourself. And yes, two representative democracies HAVE gone to war against each other. (Germany was a democracy in WWI and actually the most democratic of countries around in that time) I dont see what your point is about this but it just supports my theory that you'll say anything to support American values like democracy and capitalism. You seem to hate this Sam guy so maybe you've dropped reasoning just to lash out on him. Furthermore, who cares if capitalism is the most productive system? Socialism is better. Just a little bit ago you were talking about how something is better if there are more prosperous and free people. Socialism is better than capitalism in those areas. Furthermore, capitalism works by oppression: its hardly a system to be proud of. There is a huge discrepency of freedom between social classes. But you switch back and forth on what is good and bad, the only thing that remains constant is that the United States of America is good no matter what. I find your disguised manifest destiny very appalling. To think that the bloodline of England, America, Australia, and Canada have better cultural values and need to change the rest of the world to be similar like us is rather arrogant. I can understand patriotism but this far exceeds that.
Wrong. The moral absolutes don't change. The men in power strayed from the idealistic vision, so Africans continued to be enslaved, and Indians were butchered. It is precisely because Americans continue to strive towards reaching the idealistic goals of our forefathers that our society has evolved into the richest and most powerful nation on Earth. You need to go back reread your German history. Kaiser Wilhelm 2nd was an Emperor. Germany was FAR from a Democracy. Something tells me that you are not an entrepreneur, lol. Capitalism certainly does not "work by oppression". Let me give you a clue- wealth is not finite, and Socialist countries are reforming toward the free market out of necessity. btw, I don't hate Sam at all. Yes, our culture that was spawned from Great Britain is the best. I am sorry that you can't see that. Perhaps you should spend some time in a Communist country as I did when I was younger, or talk to my friends who grew up behind the iron curtain. Maybe you can talk to my friend who lived in Saudi Arabia working for an oil company, or ask one of the many immigrants in our fine city about their backgrounds.
LOL, put me on ignore then Zoolander, because here we go again. I quit posting for awhile to concentrate on work. You are lying again. Of course for you, truth is relative.
And I just ran a google search contradicting your claim Slavery never existed in Canada. Now if you want to start the slavery clock-watch at 1867, then you have a claim. Maybe they never legalized it, but did they ever introduce laws restricting it while it was practiced? Tell me why I should believe your claim over what I'm finding over the net. Why are they lying and you are telling the truth?
A quick Google search shows that slavery was finally abolished in Canada and Great Britain in 1833, some 35 years Vermont. Who has the moral high ground here? http://www.albany.edu/faculty/mackey/isp523/fall2002/greenaway/events.htm
<blockquote><hr> On the other hand, outside of Trader Jorge, I don't see a more necessary poster than me in D and D<hr></blockquote> When you first said that, on draft night, I thought you were talking some bar to meet me. lol. I thought, wow, the guy is for real. Then I realized you are talking about this after-thought forum. Say_Jack...yeah buddie, you are the most necessary poster in an after-thought forum on a basketball board. Find yourself an important D and D site if you're so hot, Say_Jack...umkay. you are as condencending as they come...face it.
You said "Nobody said that America was perfect, and it is LUDICROUS to judge the actions of the past by today's standards. That is like saying that Jesse Owens was an average sprinter because he only ran 9.5 in a 100 yard dash. When early Americans were committing the sins of genocide and slavery, the world was a far more savage place." Now this seems a lot like you justifying straying from these moral absolutes. You told us not to judge past actions from today's standards. I dont understand your argument. You say one thing, then you say another, and now back square one... Oh, and on your suggestion about rereading my German history. I took you up on that and found out that I was right. I have a written test that I kept from my freshman year in college. I have written that "Germany was the most democratic of countries and more democratic than Britain because although Britain had elections and civil liberties, they had no written constitution and no separation of powers..." etc. Anyways, my answer was deemed perfectly correct by the professor. The test goes on though about theoretical models to explain World War I. There was a Kantian model called the Democratic Peace Thesis that says democracies do not war with one another because democracies have reason and separation of powers to stop war mongers. This theory was proven wrong because scholars say Germany was the most democratic of the countries. They may have had an emperor but they had sound democratic tendencies and characteristics.... Anyways, I could go on and on about how I went back to my "German history" or rather my World War I history but I would say that you are wrong just by pointing out that scholars agree with my test answer. This nonsense is actually irrelevant to what we've been talking about. But what it does show is that you are willing to spew out anything to win your argument and support democracy and capitalism. I knew someone like you once, he'd argue for the sake of arguing and wouldn't stick to any ground so he could never really get burnt but it was all rather pointless and went no where. He'd even make up facts out of thin air and claim that he knows them as true, just so he won the argument. This is much like your democracies don't war with eachother statement. It was irrelevant but it seemed like you knew what you were talking about. Fortunately I knew different. So I'd rather not get into my explanation about how capitalism is oppressive, I'd much rather direct you towards Marx, Sartre or Marcuse so you waste their time rather than mine. They would be able to explain much better than me anyways. I must politely excuse myself from this debate all together because rather than trying to achieve some greater understanding you are arguing just for the sake of arguing and its rather pointless. Your method of discourse is fruitless and hopefully you'll realize this soon and stop wasting your own time maybe.
Germany under Kaiser Wilhelm 2nd was not a Democracy. He was an heir to a throne. He was not elected, he was an Emperor, and he didn't ever stand for reelection. I don't know what else to say.
Johnny, I'm not trying to make the US out to be the evil empire, far from it. I'm a fan of capitalism too, with enough regulations of course to make sure that it doesn't destroy itself in the process and to account for inefficiencies, externalities, and such. By the way, having a social safety net like in Scandanavian countries doesn't mean that you are a bunch of lazy no good commie pinkos. They happen to do pretty well for themselves. But what's more altruistic, generating 125 units of utility and concentrating it in the hands of the few (which is what unregulated capitalism does) or generating 100 and concentrating it evenly (western european social market system)? I just think that your characterization that the US of A is far and away the "most...altruistic" nation in history is a little absurd. BTW, Look at what you had to do to explain away all of the negative examples I cited. you had to make allowances for the fact that it was a differnent time, etc, and then you had to compensate for atrocities by citing the benefits we have exported by means of technology, etc. That smacks of moral relativism. Under moral absolutism, firebombing dresden is either right or wrong, dropping a second bomb on nagasaki is right or wrong, and so on and so forth. John, you want to have your cake and eat it too. You can have a world of moral absolutes if you want, but according to that standard, you can't say that the US is far and away the leading purveyor of morality. We have had too central of a role in world history to do that.
