Politicspoliticsnonsenseban

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:14 PM

The stupid answer as applied to history.

In April 1912, the RMS Titanic sank. The sinking of this mighty vessel created new regulations for ships that put to sea. Additional lifeboats was but one result of this horrific tragedy.

I was thinking about how modern political minds would react to the same sinking today, and other events in history. First, we would not mandate additional lifeboats, we would instead demand that icebergs be banned. We would pass legislation with impressive speeches about how icebergs would now be a thing of the past thus making the transit across the sea safe.

Obviously this would fail miserably, but that doesn't matter, the only thing that matters is if even one life is saved, then it must be done.

That's the point I'm making. Instead of examining the cause of things, the roots that allow the tree to grow, we focus on the symbols. Instead of attacking the roots of Islamic Jihad, we try and pretend that there are moderate jihadis, and we think that we can demoralize the group ISIS by calling it a derogatory name. Yeah, that's going to work about as well as banning icebergs.

It was because we took a long hard look at the Titanic Disaster that many lives were saved. The very design of ships changed dramatically, and safety was a mandated element in those designs, and operations. We can point to laws and regulations that were broken when the Costa Concordia sank because we had passed those regulations and laws in the aftermath of other disasters. We know what was done wrong, because we mandated the proper, and safe way to operate ships.

Deciding that the way to combat islamic violence is by giving the terrorists an unflattering name or by banning guns is like the idea that by banning highways we can eliminate highway deaths. Yes, we can move those deaths to other roads. It's not the highway that is killing the people, it's a lot of other factors including car design, speed, weather, and road quality.

So the stupid answer is now the "smart" answer according to the political leadership and the "experts". Nonsense. In another post, I mentioned that to live in harmony with your neighbor there must be two conditions met. The first condition, the desire by you to live in harmony with your neighbor. The second condition, the desire of your neighbor to live in harmony with you. There is no way to make it work with just one willing to meet the requirements. If both agree and live up to those agreements, you have harmony, but it only takes one to decide that it's just not going to happen. No matter how much you want to live in harmony, your neighbor gets a voice, and once that decision has been made, your only decision is to stand up, or be knocked down.

This simple logic escapes far too many. It has been drowned out in too many voices with long explanations about why the obvious truth is wrong. The people who follow them create even more convoluted explanations about why the obvious truth is wrong. Truth is obvious for a reason, it's right there before us. No amount of nonsense will eliminate ISIS. Your neighbor will not live in harmony, and calling him names will not make him change his mind. You might as well pass legislation making icebergs criminal.

19 replies, 928 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 19 replies Author Time Post
Reply The stupid answer as applied to history. (Original post)
SavannahMan Dec 2015 OP
bpilgrim Dec 2015 #1
SavannahMan Dec 2015 #2
bpilgrim Dec 2015 #3
SavannahMan Dec 2015 #4
bpilgrim Dec 2015 #6
SavannahMan Dec 2015 #13
bpilgrim Dec 2015 #16
Zimm_Man_Fan Dec 2015 #18
PuscrankTheRotten Dec 2015 #10
Zimm_Man_Fan Dec 2015 #17
PuscrankTheRotten Dec 2015 #19
RATFINK_5.0 Dec 2015 #5
batcat Dec 2015 #7
MountainDew Dec 2015 #8
graham4anything4HC45 Dec 2015 #9
SavannahMan Dec 2015 #11
graham4anything4HC45 Dec 2015 #12
SavannahMan Dec 2015 #14
JoePolitics Dec 2015 #15

Response to SavannahMan (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:22 PM

1. Naturally occurring phenomenon vs manufacturing

 

derp

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bpilgrim (Reply #1)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:24 PM

2. Yeah.



I believe that covers it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SavannahMan (Reply #2)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:29 PM

3. Yep, that covers the OP

 

perfectly

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bpilgrim (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:31 PM

4. Don't blame me.

I'm not the one suggesting that we can defeat ISIS by calling them Dish or whatever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SavannahMan (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:37 PM

6. Just the extremist conservative voices in your head then?

 

as no one is claiming that we can defeat them with a name change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bpilgrim (Reply #6)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 06:22 PM

13. Indeed?

So in addition to being wrong, you're ignorant? I guess that's no surprise.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/11/kerry-daesh-isil_n_6309664.html

Secretary John Kerry

Kerry made clear earlier this week that he is committed to referring to the Islamic State as "Daesh," a name that the group considers so degrading that it has threatened to kill anyone under Islamic State rule who uses it. The Islamic State's opponents in the Muslim world have already embraced the name.

France's Government. http://theweek.com/speedreads/446139/france-says-name-isis-offensive-call-daesh-instead

The British Government. http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/why-isis-will-hate-it-if-we-start-calling-them-daesh--bkC822p_zl

Obama was resisting it. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/02/05/obama_and_john_kerry_can_t_even_agree_on_what_to_call_isis.html

Until post Paris attack.

http://time.com/4113629/obama-redouble-syria/

Shall I continue? Would videos help you believe the truth? I doubt it. Stubborn is not as attractive as you might think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SavannahMan (Reply #13)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 06:54 PM

16. derp

 

Read them all and no one claims that changing the name we refer to them as will defeat them.

Quote w/link or slink.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SavannahMan (Reply #13)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 07:13 PM

18. And all he can do when confronted with irrefutable facts is sputter "derp."

That's about the IQ level you're dealing with there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bpilgrim (Reply #1)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 05:59 PM

10. So you are saying you are stupid?

Have done something stupid?

A reference to the The Digital Ecologies Research Partnership?

Or just a lazy liberal who cannot express themselves?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PuscrankTheRotten (Reply #10)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 07:10 PM

17. That one pretty much proclaims that with his every post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zimm_Man_Fan (Reply #17)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 07:16 PM

19. Just pointing out the meaning

of the words they use (Of course that is when they haven't invented an entirely new self serving meaning.)

In this case I take it to be the verb form, directed at ones self.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SavannahMan (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:36 PM

5. Good argument. Notice, how many large shipwrecks we've had in the last decade,

We still don't have enough lifeboats on these ships.

Costa Concordia would be a farce if it weren't such a tragedy. Then there's the Korean Ferry that capsized ...

However, I am going to start referring to ISIS as DAESH. Don't think for a moment their political/religious leaders aren't doing the same thing to those of us in the west.

It's a World War, until they're gone . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SavannahMan (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:40 PM

7. Excellent post. (n/t)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SavannahMan (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:48 PM

8. Very well done!!

 

I noticed that your point couldn't make it past a certain posters fingers which were firmly planted in his/her ears. He was probably still trying to remove the sand.

Take care!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SavannahMan (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 05:45 PM

9. I disagree 100%. Feel free to disagree with my disagreement.

btw, there is no war going on.

the world didn't stop with Bonnie and Clyde. And in the Wild West of that age, sheriff's actually did not allow guns in some towns. So the wild west actually included zero guns in the street, which is my point.

people had guns, but not in the streets of those towns

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything4HC45 (Reply #9)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 06:14 PM

11. Again, you're wrong.

In those towns with "Zero Guns" that did not apply to the Residents. Only the strangers who were in town. So they didn't have zero guns, they had a lot of guns, just not on the cowboys showing up to drink. We're not talking about banning guns in bars, or on St. Patrick's day. We're not even talking about banning guns in this thread. I think you got confused from the other thread where I thoroughly defeated you in the debate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SavannahMan (Reply #11)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 06:18 PM

12. everyone is entitled to their opinion. Feel free to differ from mine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything4HC45 (Reply #12)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 06:27 PM

14. Opinion, certainly.

But no one is entitled to change history. History is factual, and unless you have a new interpretation like Shattered Sword did for the Battle of Midway, based upon referenced historical documents, you don't get to announce everyone is wrong just because you want it to be.

I can claim that man walked on Rainbows to cross from the Eurasian continent to the North American Continent. It would be asinine and flatly wrong. But I could claim it. If you want an opinion based upon fiction, that's fine. But don't try and sell the fiction as fact. You and everyone has a right to an opinion. You're free to be as wrong as you want. But nobody gets to rewrite history to get it to suit their narrative. That is an abomination used by dictators and banana republics to justify some outrageous practice. It is and well should be utterly rejected by civilized society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SavannahMan (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 06:53 PM

15. We should go invade something!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Politicspoliticsnonsenseban