Re. brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

Bob LeChevalier lojbab at lojban.org
Wed Oct 2 17:26:26 EST 2002


"John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
>> >Does it trouble you at all that 68% approve of the US military removing
>> >Sadam from power even though only 20% see any benefit from it?
>>
>> Your "even though" condition is not in evidence.
>
>A MINIMUM of 30%, and a MAXIMUM of 48%, want to attack Iraq even though they
>KNOW it will not reduce terrorism nor will it reduce WMDs.

They do not "know" any such thing.  They may "believe" it, but belief
is not knowledge to anyone but YOU.

>NOW you have everything you need to answer the question,

No.

>so why don't you answer it?

It obviously hasn't occurred to you that there are other possible
reasons/benefits to removing Saddam from power OTHER THAN reducing
terrorism or reducing WMDs.

>> >Does it
>> >trouble you at all that this is a violation of international treaties, of
>> >the US Constitution, of UN resolutions, of the opinion of the vast majority
>> >of people in the world, of the opinions of most of our top MILITARY men
>> >(which the current encumbants of the White House are NOT)?
>> >
>> >Why do you think this 48% who see no benefit in reducing terrorism or WMDs
>> >support this war in Iraq?
>>
>> Because they feel like it?
>
>That's about the extent of the "liberals"' ability to reason, isn't it?
>They really don't need no stinkin' reason when they can "feel like it",
>right?

Actually, it is the right-wing more than the left-wing that is
particularly hawkish on this issue.  It is the "liberals" who are
insisting that we use the United Nations, and who claim that the
administration hasn't "made a case" for attacking Iraq.

>> >> No. It is called pre-emptive action against a threat.
>> >
>> >It is called "48% of Americans want a war but don't even know why" (unless
>> >of course their reason for wanting a war wasn't included in the poll).
>>
>> That could be too.  Some people think it is about oil. Others think it
>> is about the Prez finishing his daddy's wars.
>
>NEITHER Of which are sufficient justification to bring a just Christian
>nation into a war on a third world country like Iraq, are they?

You are perhaps assuming that aggressive war can ever be "justified"
under Christian principles.

But since we aren't a Christian nation, and most of the Christians in
this country have no compunction against abandoning "Christian
principles" when it suits their fancy, your question is moot.

>This STILL
>leaves 30-48% of the American population in a VERY poor moral state, doesn't
>it?

100% of the population is in a very poor moral state, by nature.  For
all fall short of the glory of God.

>But you missed the BIG point, which is that an undetermined number of
>Americans have bought the subtle but pervasive BS in the jewsmedia about how
>a war with Iraq is just what's needed to get "our economy" back on track.

Really?  I haven't seen any such BS.  I can imagine that the
Republicans would like war talk to distract the electorate from the
economy in November, because based on the economy the Republicans
would lose their shirts in the election.

>I
>mean, this "inexplicible" 85% plunge in the NASDAQ and the almost 40% plunge
>in the DJIA would immediately correct itself if we'd just vote to send the
>boys off to war, right?

No.

>WRONG!!  NO war has ever been "good for the economy".

Correct, more or less.  It provides a short term stimulus with long
term negative consequences.

>Before WWII, we had a
>personal savings rate almost as high as the Japanese,

Before WWII, we had a Depression with multiple bank failures.  There
were very little personal savings.

>You CANNOT dispute http://www.geocities.com/fathersfiasco/ because they are
>from your fovorite source:  the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

Of course I can.  Your website may have some federal government
figures, but it also suffers from nincompoop "logic" being applied to
mangle those figures into something that supports your nincompoop
ideas.

lojbab



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list