New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Russian military leaders have expressed concern about US plans for a national missile defense system. Will defense technology be limited by possibilities for a strategic imbalance? Is this just SDI all over again?

possumdag - 09:02pm Jun 25, 2001 EST (#6043 of 6056)
Possumdag@excite.com

Humor emerges when a culture is fixed .. :)

possumdag - 09:05pm Jun 25, 2001 EST (#6044 of 6056)
Possumdag@excite.com

www.transparency.com is a body set up to get to truth. The most truthful countries enjoy the BEST standards of living .. and the USA isn't the top of the heap!

possumdag - 09:10pm Jun 25, 2001 EST (#6045 of 6056)
Possumdag@excite.com

from the humor link ..

APPROACHES DIFFICULT PROBLEMS WITH LOGIC: Finds someone else to do the job.

gisterme - 09:58pm Jun 25, 2001 EST (#6046 of 6056)

rshowalter wrote: "...(rshowalter 6/25/01 4:08pm): "...On morally forcing. I can swim. It seems to me that if I'm passing by a drowning kid, who I can easily save, I'm morally forced to do it..."

That's Robert's example of what he means when he uses the term "morally forcing".

But earlier Robert wrote ( rshowalt 5/30/01 12:14pm ): "...Unless checking is morally forcing , or in any event, forced one way or another - we don't have a stable situation. But there's hope..."

That usage doesn't agree too well with the later drowning kid definition you gave, Robert. Besides, in the way you seem to use the term, "checking" means checking things against YOUR world view. Of course, if you were the "checker" you'd find fault with what you don't agree with. Since opinion about SO many things in the "real" world is quite subjective the idea of checking in the way you apply it seems kind of silly.

Here's an example of what I mean by that. When I "checked" you on "outrageous statements" that you denied making, gisterme 6/25/01 7:45pm , you responded with a cry of "conspiracy...fraud!". Check it out! You made that claim eventhough what I called up was WHAT YOU WROTE. So much for "checking" in the way that you seem to REALLY mean it. Checking for you is only checking when it suits your purpose. The only time that real checking can be done is when there is objective truth to check against. That's a pretty rare situation, especially where politics and more especially where recimination is involved.

The only way I could "check" your "outrageous statement" comment is because there is a written record with your name on it. Without that I would have been SOL. So that rare case is about as close to objectivity as one can get, yet you still are in denial about it. Tell me...what good did my checking do? Not a bit. When you talk about "checking", Robert, I think you're talking about smoke, eggs and mirrors.

gisterme - 10:08pm Jun 25, 2001 EST (#6047 of 6056)

possumdag wrote ( possumdag 6/25/01 8:22pm) : "GI: seems to imply there is one code of behaviour for the ingroup and a political code to be used with the outgroup - 'other'.."

quoting from gisterme 6/25/01 8:09pm:

"...For example, YOUR example of what you mean by "moral forcing"; that it is "moral forcing" when a person feels obligated to rescue a drowing child. Any normal person would just call that "common decency" or at worst "civil duty". There is no moralizing or forcing happening in a situation like that. Folks just tend to do the right thing to spare a life. If you're being truthful about that being your definition of "moral forcing" then I'd suggest you drop the concocted term and use one that other people can understand.

I kind of think that the definition-by-example you gave is a bit deceptive, since you almost always use the term "moral forcing" in a political context, which has no objective parallel to your example. Based on the context of your usage of YOUR OWN TERM, what you're talking about is political mind control/enforcement. said GI"

Not. Can't see how you draw that conclusion from what's written there. I think that's your imagination working on you possumdag. You must need some rest.

Me too.

Good night all.

possumdag - 11:05pm Jun 25, 2001 EST (#6048 of 6056)
Possumdag@excite.com

GI as an American:

via 'common decency' you can see, that as a swimming adult you have the ability to save the child from death and agree there's an active need to do so.

Do you see the need to pass internal laws that honour the rights of ALL members of the USA community .. Bush didn't see the need -- so exactly who was the guy trying to please as Texas Governor.

As the ripple from the stone in the pond moves from the child, to those wanting protection from the bully, and out to those whom America might regard as 'OTHER' .. non USA citizens in countries with struggling economies ... then in the wider sense - if their view points don't fall in line with the USA they become politically, strategically vulnerable 'others' .. there were a lot of 'others' in LAOS - to give an example, and these 'others' are having limbs smashed and shattered (amputated) by the thousand - still - because politically the USA won't clean up the land mines it seeded .. won't find the dollars to do the DECENT thing for the innocent childen of LAOS who are drowning in their own blood via USA land mines!

Missiles - didn't Showalter try to put the view point, time after time, that Missiles are statistically unstable mechanisms that can be released by accident ... or, an opposing group might see a non-existant, false alarm missile approaching, and a rookie has to reason whether or not to fire retaliatory missiles ... holding the world to ransome re her/his interpretation of an approaching dot on a screen.

Here's more fact:

'The C..IA was involved in a variety of ways - by air, land, and sea - in bringing cocaine into the United States. '

possumdag - 11:14pm Jun 25, 2001 EST (#6049 of 6056)
Possumdag@excite.com

Nazi logics ?

Citizens must surely wonder at the sheer incompetence of the USA govt when it can't examine the functioning of this agency, look at the NAZI principles it operates along, and bring it INTO LINE, when common decency demands it.

(7 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense