Has the FSF responded?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Tsuroerusu Jan 03, 2007 3:43 PM EDT |
Is anyone aware of a potential response from the FSF to this? |
| rijelkentaurus Jan 03, 2007 4:12 PM EDT |
This guy's got a mighty high opinion of Ubuntu. I don't care for it, and the more I try it and its derivatives, the more I don't like it. But that's really a personal opinion thing, I suppose. I won't fault him for that. I will fault him for saying that gNewSense "doesn't work on most people's computers." That's a bit broad of a statement, and most people don't "have ATI and nVidia video cards," they've got onboard graphics, especially in laptops. Not that there aren't a lot of folks with them, but there are more without. He is asserting that there are 3-4 PCs out there that will work with gNewSense. I've got that many at home. "Another practical problem is that gNewSense isn't a rock star. Ubuntu is." Hmmm. Popular, perhaps, but the "cool" factor is a matter of opinion, and we disagree on this opinion. "Faced with a recommendation to install Ubuntu, they just might say 'ya... I've been hearing a lot about that. Maybe I should give it a try.'" Riiiggghhhttt. For my part, people think I have the hiccups when I say "Ubuntu," not that they've heard of it. I hear more and more people realizing what Linux is, not Ubuntu. In this area (NC, USA) it's Red Hat and nothing else. "The overwhelming majority of computer users have some hardware that requires some sort of binary-only code to operate." Incorrect. Even if it's a majority (I dispute that idea), it's not overwhelming. "Ubuntu is more or less 99% free. It doesn't even come anywhere close to being as awful as Vista is." And Putin isn't near as bad as Stalin was. Not necessarily a glowing recommendation. The new Ubuntu slogan: "At least we're not Microsoft." "I understand that it's quite a strange position to be in to be condemning Ubuntu on one hand for their shipping of proprietary code, while recommending them to people on the other hand. To do so would require swallowing some pride. I hope that this is something that you're capable of doing." This is the biggest one. It's not (to most of us) that Ubuntu ships proprietary code, it's that this is planned on being the DEFAULT behavior. I wish the Ubuntu could swallow a little pride and offer it as a choice, with the default and RECOMMENDED method being to use 100% Free Software. "Recommending Ubuntu instead of gNewSense will increase the public's acceptance of your platform." Linux is not the FSF's platform. It is (correctly) regarded only as the kernel, and the entire system is referred to as GNU/Linux. Recommending Ubuntu will also, unfortunately, increase the public's acceptance of non-free software. Otherwise he makes some good points. |
| azerthoth Jan 03, 2007 4:23 PM EDT |
Unfortunatly he hasnt said anything that hasnt already been addressed by RMS. The Linux Link Tech Show http://www.tllts.org recently did an interview with Mr Stallman (episode 165) that was rather interesting. To be blunt RMS's zealotry (there is unfortunatly no other word for it) on the subject does not allow room for anything other than 100% open source as defined by the GPL. That letter infers that the FSF has some reason to want to be politically correct and/or palatable to a larger section of society. They have repeatedly said that while its nice when people agree with them being popular isnt even on their radar of concerns. They dont subscibe to the oxymoron of necessary evil, in this case any code that the end user can not freely open up and modify if they so choose. I really suggest that any one who has the time listen to that interview. There was a stretch in there where linc got RMS to start talking without first thinking about his answers. It does a great job of showing exactly how single minded he (and the FSF) are on these topics. |
| rijelkentaurus Jan 03, 2007 4:39 PM EDT |
>I really suggest that any one who has the time listen to that interview. I have and I thought RMS did a great job explaining his position, and linc was being a jerk. RMS and the FSF have single-minded goals, yes, but that's not a bad thing. GNU and the Linux kernel didn't get where they were because these guys folded or made compromises; in fact, the opposite is true. >They dont subscibe to the oxymoron of necessary evil No great minds ever do. There are reasons that Christ wound up on a cross, that Ghandi was shot, that the Buddha was reviled and hated by many. They had no sense of compromise on what they saw as right. Agree or not, it's admirable. Paraphrasing Nietzsche (because I can't find my "Beyond Good and Evil"): "You say it is a good cause that hallows even war? I say it is a good war that hallows any cause." |
| azerthoth Jan 03, 2007 5:06 PM EDT |
Dont take what I said out of context. I'm not being critical of RMS or the FSF. Just pointing out what the letter writer doesnt understand. As for linc, he pushes peoples buttons, he's good at it. I'm all for getting public figures to start talking without thinking, it does a better job of letting us know how they really percieve the world around them than pre-scripted and well thought out pap. He wasnt being an @$$, he was bringing forward the thought process alot of people have. The people who have libdvdcss2, w32codecs, or nvidia drivers to list a few installed. hmm OK he was being an @$$, however it worked and it got him out of his standard stock of answers and brought out some of the more interesting twists of his mind. |
| tuxchick Jan 03, 2007 5:09 PM EDT |
Google sayeth: "You say it is the good cause that hallows even war? I say unto you: it is the good war that hallows any cause. War and courage have accomplished more great things than love of thy neighbor." |
| rijelkentaurus Jan 03, 2007 5:15 PM EDT |
>Google sayeth: Much grass, tc. My boogers are clouding my brain and I completely forgot about Google. I'm going to bed. G'Night! |
| jimf Jan 03, 2007 5:19 PM EDT |
Just concider that there is no 'good war', hallowed or not. |
| dek Jan 03, 2007 7:23 PM EDT |
>> Just concider that there is no 'good war', hallowed or not. For once we agree on something, Jim!! Although I'm not sure there ever is such a thing as a "Hallowed War"? Well, maybe metaphorically with M$ there is. Out side of metaphor I seriously question this. What does the phrase "Hallowed War" mean anyway? (My anabaptist roots are showing, I guess.) Don K. |
| jimf Jan 03, 2007 7:32 PM EDT |
What does the phrase "Hallowed War" mean anyway? Seems that every country in every time has claimed god on their side, and that something is 'hallowed' about it... At the same time every religion I know of claims that life is sacred and we have no right to take it... Darned if I understand any of it. |
| dcparris Jan 03, 2007 10:41 PM EDT |
Don't worry gang! I have all the answers. Honestly. Right here: http://pintopc.home.cern.ch/pintopc/www/cois&lois/Religion.h... Yes, I am horribly flawed. :-) |
| rijelkentaurus Jan 04, 2007 2:46 AM EDT |
>Just concider that there is no 'good war', hallowed or not. No one understands methaphors, eh? Nietzsche never spoke of actual war, he abhorred it, but rather of a "war of ideas and ideals", where people stand behind an idea and fight for it, giving everything to it and approach it with a single-minded sense of duty. Rather like we do with Linux, and surely the way RMS and the FSF approach Free Software. As far as bombs, killing people and working to "ethnically cleanse" certain sectors of society...yes, that's horrid and pointless. |
| jdixon Jan 04, 2007 3:13 AM EDT |
> ...yes, that's horrid and pointless. Horrid, yes. If it was pointless, people wouldn't do it. Like it or not, there will always be those who choose violence as their solution to disputes, both on a personal and group level. |
| dinotrac Jan 04, 2007 4:00 AM EDT |
>They had no sense of compromise on what they saw as right. But Christ broke bread with sinners, reminded people to render unto Caesar what was Caesar's, to wreak havoc in a sacred templ, and allowed his feet to be washed with perfume. Gandhi was willing to die, but not to kill. Not so familiar with Buddha, I'm afraid. In short, Christ and Gandhi worked within the world as it was, without violence to it, in order to further their cause. RMS has done the same. The GPL is a great "word as it is" compromise, as is the LGPL. The FSF list of free software licenses includes those that are not copyleft and those that are not considered compatible with the GPL. A zealot? Sure, but that's not always bad. RMS fanboys, on the other hand... |
| joel Jan 04, 2007 6:43 AM EDT |
Well said, Dino. There are many interesting comments in this thread regarding war. Having been to many interesting places & having done many interesting things in this old world, I'd like to share a couple of the most profound treatises regarding war, its causes, its consequences, & its avoidance for individuals and groups that I have found thus far. The Arbinger Institute has published two books, Leadership and Self-Deception and The Anatomy of Peace which I have found to be both utterly fascinating and profound in the discovery of, prevention of, and recovery from the root causes of both personal and group conflict. For those who are unable to purchase either of these books, they have been and are currently being serialized in Meridian Magazine at http://www.meridianmagazine.com/ideas/020409boom.html and .../books/060828.anatomy.html respectively. I highly recommend that you read Leadership and Self_Deception first, as The Anatomy of Peace is its sequel, which will become apparent immediately, and builds admirably upon the insights revealed in the first book. I am not an agent for or employed by The Arbinger Institute, merely one who loves Liberty, Justice, Truth, Honor, Peace, and Righteousness. I have found these two books to be invaluable to me in my pursuit and defense of these ideals. Ciao. |
| rijelkentaurus Jan 04, 2007 10:02 AM EDT |
>RMS fanboys, on the other hand... As Ghandi said, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." >The Arbinger Institute has published two books, Leadership and Self-Deception and The Anatomy of Peace which I have found to be both utterly fascinating and profound in the discovery of, prevention of, and recovery from the root causes of both personal and group conflict. Thanks, I'll check them out. |
| jdixon Jan 04, 2007 10:13 AM EDT |
> Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. Well, duh. If we weren't, we wouldn't have needed him in the first place. |
| jimf Jan 04, 2007 10:29 AM EDT |
> If we weren't, we wouldn't have needed him in the first place. Just seems that we are all 'very' slow learners. Learn what Jesus teaches, learn what Ghandi says, but for God's sake learn (and hopefully apply) something ;-) . |
| jdixon Jan 04, 2007 11:03 AM EDT |
...we are all 'very' slow learners. Agreed. And the aggregate is even slower than the individual. :( |
| azerthoth Jan 04, 2007 12:36 PM EDT |
Because of war we have computers (well actually Nikola Tesla but whose counting).
Because of war we have satellites to keep us in touch around the world.
Because of war we have the ability to debate these issues.
Because of war we have learned the value of peace.
Because of war we have learned to set aside distrust and replace it with friendship. Nearly everything you have or see around you is an offshoot from the human nature to bat each others brains out with a club. Only in the last few hundered years has that been seen as a bad thing to be avoided, and even a shorter period that people actually took such notions seriously. Saying that there is no good war is not only idealistic, but just plain wrong. Ask a jewish person if a bunch of nations standing up to a bully was wrong. Better yet, ask one thats on the space station, because the technology that allowed him to get there was developed from the same war that was fought so that he could live to do so. War has done more good things than bad for society overall, and before someone else pops up with more church stuff ... let me bring up the crusades, the inquisition, and more recently behind the scenes support for Nazi Germany. Dont let it be said that there is no good war, dont fall into that mental trap. Either that or stop celebrating Veterans Day, Memorial Day, and the 4th of July. |
| jdixon Jan 04, 2007 1:14 PM EDT |
> Saying that there is no good war is not only idealistic, but just plain wrong. Semantics, I will admit, but I disagree. What you seem to be arguing is that fighting some wars is better than not fighting them. That is undoubtedly true, but not having to fight them in the first place would be even better. There is no "good" war. There may be necessary wars, but not good ones. |
| tuxchick Jan 04, 2007 1:21 PM EDT |
I could live with a lot less technological progress if it meant living with a lot fewer wars. There is a lot more to life than an endless stream of shinier newer gadgets. |
| jimf Jan 04, 2007 1:51 PM EDT |
What amazing rationalizations azerthoth. You demonstrate exactly the abilities of the species that have allow this vicious cycle of destruction to go on and on. You do your species proud. > Saying that there is no good war is not only idealistic, but just plain wrong No, defending one's self may be necessary, and justified, but never good, or beneficial in it's self. Trying to use the old saw about benefits versus human death and suffering is just stupid. Of course there you may have a point. The human race may very well be tied to it's cave man roots, and, seems always to revert. You demonstrate that well. > more church stuff Sorry, no Christian here, and, no dispute that religion has been used to mask all sorts of evils. In fact you'll find that religion has almost always been used to rationalize and justify massacre. Again, we humans rationalize and spin things so well. > Either that or stop celebrating Veterans Day, Memorial Day, and the 4th of July. We honor the sacrifice, not the war. I'd say more, but, you'd probably declare war on me ;-) |
| azerthoth Jan 04, 2007 2:27 PM EDT |
Feel free to say more, personally I am far from militant. >>Trying to use the old saw about benefits versus human death and suffering is just stupid. This is based wholly upon a single supposition that every single life has some intrinsic value based wholly on the fact that they can move air in and out of their lungs. It is a very prevelant philosphy in the western world, just not one that I subscribe to. Not one single one of us will be around in 150 years, the society we create however will be. Just as the society that the romans created is still with us and a part of us. As an individual I can improve myself and a few people around me and thats it. As part of a larger group, a society as it were, I can in effect change the world. As an individual I can treat the world as if I were a member of the crew on the starship earth as Robert Heinlien put it and make not one single differance. However if society(ies) can take on that out look then the world will hopefully be a better place. So yes, I see the betterment and improvement of society as a more important thing than any individuals personal discomfort. In the end that person and I will be taking up the same occupation of worm playground. It is the society and the world that is crafted that will continue on. I dont want utopia, I want a place where a sustainable culture can be maintained in perpetuity. We arent there yet and we will have many more wars before we do manage to because it is still human nature to fear and therefor hate. The wars that you deride as possibly necessary are continued blocks to building that place. Do I feel sorry for those whose lives are ended or disrupted? Yes, I spent 6 years as a combat medic doing my best to prevent death on an individual level. That doesnt change the fact that society needs improving and to get that done on a world wide basis does and will continue to require wars and bloodshed. |
| tuxchick Jan 04, 2007 2:53 PM EDT |
There is zero connection between "war" and "betterment of society". If suffering and destruction are "better", then Afghanistan must be darn near paradise. And Somalia, and Iraq, and Colombia, and Kashmir, and Turkey/Kurdistan... why, the nice folks in Bosnia must be living in a Utopia by now. Alchoholism and unemployment among American Indians is nearly pandemic. The American South has yet to recover completely from the Civil War. Look at the trail of ruined economies, families, and physical damage left behind by the British Empire. And so on and on... Nope, I don't buy a word of it. It's disrespectful to human life, and to all life- humans are not the only casualties in a war. |
| dinotrac Jan 04, 2007 3:31 PM EDT |
>The American South has yet to recover completely from the Civil War. Ummm....Care to explain that one? I live in the north now, but I was born in the south by two southern families (as in Virginia on one side, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas on the other). Nevertheless, I can't let that one go. The pre Civil War South was not exactly an economic powerhouse, which is a big part of the reason the North won, in spite of much good soldiering on the Conferate side, and several incompetent generals on the Northern side until Grant took over. The South had an industrial base, but nowhere near as developed as that in the north. Cotton was king, and a pretty weak kind, considering the slave labor needed to keep it going. |
| rijelkentaurus Jan 04, 2007 3:43 PM EDT |
>I could live with a lot less technological progress if it meant living with a lot fewer wars. There is a lot more to life than an endless stream of shinier newer gadgets. Right, ends do not justify means. What eventually happens as a result doesn't matter, it's how you handle yourself in the moment. "No harm, no foul" is really a BS statement. The foul happens regardless of the harm. |
| jimf Jan 04, 2007 4:30 PM EDT |
> The foul happens regardless of the harm. Or the suposed 'benefits'. |
| azerthoth Jan 04, 2007 4:47 PM EDT |
Interesting, the concept of foul or right vs wrong is a wholly constructed concept and is unique in nature to humanity. Let me challenge you all a little and I fully expect some diverse answers. If to achieve that utopian society where wars, famine, and hunger were eliminated, where we were lead by benevolent and enlightened leaders could be achieved with the deaths of 1 out of every 150 people currently alive would it be worth it? Think hard on this, never again would anyone face the possability of war EVER. No one would die of hunger or malnutrition, no child would ever go to bed hungry EVER. Untold trillions of people would only know of these things theoretically from history books. OR We reject that solution and damn future generations to all the horrors our current history books depict and more. Many more wars, entire countries devestated by starvation. Lay your morals against the livelihood of all future generations. p.s. that 1 in 150 coincidentally has real meaning in the US. It is roughly the number of people that have no lives what so ever because they are incarcerated in our prison system. A country with 10% of the worlds population has 25% of the worlds prison population. That in itself says alot about the sad state of our society and the morals that guide it. |
| jimf Jan 04, 2007 5:01 PM EDT |
> If to achieve that utopian society Won't happen, and even if we are to hold that as the ideal to work toward, we can't attain it over a bridge of the maimed and dieing. Something like what matters the goal if we loose our souls and humanity in gaining it. That's not even addressing the question of 'what is utopia?'. |
| dek Jan 04, 2007 5:10 PM EDT |
The chick has it! ;-) I think she's got a hole in one, to use a golf term. Thanks TC! |
| rijelkentaurus Jan 04, 2007 5:25 PM EDT |
>If to achieve that utopian society where wars, famine, and hunger were eliminated, where we were lead by benevolent and enlightened leaders could be achieved with the deaths of 1 out of every 150 people currently alive would it be worth it? If to achieve that utopian society where wars, famine, and hunger were eliminated, where we were lead by benevolent and enlightened leaders could be achieved with 100 monkeys flying out of my butt....yeah, pointless arguments both ways. We can make outlandish argumentative comparisons forever, but it ignores the real world. Would I give up peanut butter for world peace? Sure. Would I make you give it up? That would be wrong, and probably impossible. What all of our Christs and Ghandis (and even our Nietzsches) tell us, is that we can only make the choice about ourselves. Am I willing to sacrifice MYSELF so that we might achieve that (or whatever) Utopian society? It's not about stringing other people up on a cross, it's about allowing ourselves to be strung up, or shot down. Remember, Christ is held in high regard, the people who pinned him on the cross (and thus made possible Christian salvation, in a manner of speaking) are not. Why? Because individual action matters, and right and wrong do not pass beyond the action of the moment. Nietzsche made the point that you can't judge actions good or bad by consequences, because where do you start and stop judgment? You save a baby, then the baby grows up to kill a bunch of people, and then one of the victim's children grows up and starts a charity to care for survivors of murder victims, one of whom becomes a heroin addict, who gets another friend started on heroin, who then dies, whose mother then dedicates herself to stopping heroin addiction, but her grief at the loss of her daughter drives her to alcoholism, which leads to intoxicated driving, which leads to killing someone else...blah blah blah. The only thing for certain about the initial action is that it is RIGHT to save the baby. You can't control the consequences. The saying is "power corrupts, etc," and it applies to your supposed enlightened leaders. We can't see the consequences, but we pretend we can, and commit atrocities in the name of the "good of the people". There are three ways to handle power gracefully: Give it up, or give it away, or share it equally. Free Software, to my mind, is about all three. It seems trivial, hey, it's just software, but the lessons taken away (at least by some of us) are very important and applicable to the rest our lives. Many religious people (such as Christians) maintain that the Free Software movement is near and dear to the philosophy of their religion. Indeed, it is. The Free Software revolution was started by an atheist (such as myself), which says to me that the universe speaks to all of us...I always ask people if God only speaks one language. In my mind I come back to Nietzsche, who wrote, "The belly of being does not speak to humans at all, except as a human." I am sick, partly high off some cold medicine, and very tired. Forgive my rambling. |
| jdixon Jan 04, 2007 5:28 PM EDT |
Where to start. Well, probably best to start at the beginning. > This is based wholly upon a single supposition that every single life has some intrinsic value based wholly on the fact that they can move air in and out of their lungs. It is a very prevelant philosphy in the western world, just not one that I subscribe to. Then you support tyranny and mass slaughter. If all human lives are not equal, then some of worth more, and reason dictates that those who are worth less can easily and justifiably be enslaved or eliminated for the benefit of the others. What you are saying devolves to might makes right. The simple fact is that while what you say may be true, no failable human (and all of us are) is qualified to make such judgments. Far better to realize our limitations and leave such to a higher authority (if such be) or to chance (if not). > Not one single one of us will be around in 150 years. No one taking part in this conversation, probably. But there is a definite chance some of our children will be. We are very close to understanding genetics well enough to possibly overcome aging, if not death. > the society we create however will be. Just as the society that the romans created is still with us and a part of us. No, it won't. The Romans are no longer with us. We used what they left us, true, but each generation must make its own civilization anew. There is no "society" without the individuals which make it up. Again, giving society greater purpose than the individual devolves into might makes right. > As part of a larger group, a society as it were, I can in effect change the world. However if society(ies) can take on that out look then the world will hopefully be a better place. Societies don't act. They don't take on outlooks. Only individual humans do. The sum total of those individuals is what makes the "society" you revere. Without them, it is nothing, and would never have been in the first place. > So yes, I see the betterment and improvement of society as a more important thing than any individuals personal discomfort. And who makes those decisions. And who pays what price when they are wrong, which they will be. > In the end that person and I will be taking up the same occupation of worm playground. If you are correct, then that's true no matter who's right in this or any discussion. That makes your position rather pointless, doesn't it. If you're not, then you have more to worry about than just this life. > It is the society and the world that is crafted that will continue on. See my comment above about each generation. > I dont want utopia, I want a place where a sustainable culture can be maintained in perpetuity. Since nothing in the universe, possibly even the universe itself, is eternal, that's a hopeless desire, even if you could determine what was and was not a "sustainable" culture, which we've shown no signs of being able to do. >We arent there yet and we will have many more wars before we do manage to because it is still human nature to fear and therefor hate. And unless you can change human nature, it always we be. > The wars that you deride as possibly necessary are continued blocks to building that place. The wars may be used as building blocks, but they are not necessary. The building could be done better and easier without them. > That doesnt change the fact that society needs improving and to get that done on a world wide basis does and will continue to require wars and bloodshed. And again, you come back to the central point. Death and destruction are justified if for the common good. Might makes right. Believe me, if you ever get the society you are striving for, you will be very, very sorry. Apologies to everyone else for the dark turn in the conversation. I'll drop the subject here, as it's getting too close to breaking the TOS, and I find the points too distasteful in any case. Azerthoth is, of course, free to continue making his points as he see fit, barring editorial intervention. |
| tuxchick Jan 04, 2007 5:49 PM EDT |
azerthoth, that whole premise of one-suffers-to-buy-paradise-for-many is bogus. How does that work? is there some sadistic god to make that deal with? Ursula LeGuin's "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas" is a great story about that very idea, and she also dodges the question of what makes it work, since the story is about the moral implications of such a bargain. But you're not discussing the theoretical or moral aspects, but claiming that it works. So far you have not even tried to support your premise that war is beneficial, except for some vague handwaving about technological progress. Which is true, but I sure wouldn't call it beneficial, not with humans multiplying like cockroaches and trashing our own living space to the point that it's already unhealthy for us, and has been since the industrial age was well under way. Are humans improved? It's arguable, but I'd say not very much, if at all. We can wander all over trying to define Utopia- I'm content to stand on "war is bad and there is no justification for it." Dino, perhaps I was starting from a faulty premise. The south has big chunks that are still in the toilet economically, antebellum attitudes are still strong, and I can't think of a single good thing that came about as a result of the civil war. |
| rijelkentaurus Jan 04, 2007 5:53 PM EDT |
>I can't think of a single good thing that came about as a result of the civil war. Um, an end to slavery? Granted, it's been a work in progress ever since. |
| azerthoth Jan 04, 2007 6:02 PM EDT |
Your mistaking what I want with what I see, understand, and accept as how the world actually works. Short of the hypothetical question that is. As for deviating from whats allowed by the TOS, that went by the wayside at post 4 on this thread for offensive content. Some of you actually saw the connections I was drawing and found them insanely distastefull, and some saw nothing and felt aggreived anyway. dixon I think figured it out closest, from his response I think he even spotted one or two of the contradictions I tossed in through the course of this. Remember folks, your morals and beliefs are wrong, as are mine. It all depends greatly on your starting point, because the same people that will tell you that you believe incorrectly are correct in their own eyes. Just as you are correct in your own. Neither is right, just dont be afraid to question your beliefs to see if the other guy may have a point. |
| rijelkentaurus Jan 04, 2007 6:08 PM EDT |
>that went by the wayside at post 4 on this thread for offensive content. Oops. Cleaned it up. |
| jimf Jan 04, 2007 6:10 PM EDT |
My azerthoth, you are just soo incisive... ;-) |
| azerthoth Jan 04, 2007 6:39 PM EDT |
Oh there are alot of my beliefs wrapped up in that mess. Some of the things that some took offense from really are how I view the world. I am perhaps too cynical for my own good or the good of those around me. To paraphhrase someone else on here, I saw an awfull lot of shinbones moving upwards in reaction. >>Because of war we have computers (well actually Nikola Tesla but whose counting). >>Because of war we have satellites to keep us in touch around the world. >>Because of war we have the ability to debate these issues. >>Because of war we have learned the value of peace. >>Because of war we have learned to set aside distrust and replace it with friendship. I stand by that, so put on some heavier shoes and read the last 2 again. Wish as you might you can not deny that we now enjoy the benefits of wars fought, and as history has shown us, we will continue to unthinkingly accept and enjoy similar gains from current and future wars. |
| jimf Jan 04, 2007 6:46 PM EDT |
That's not even worth a serious response. |
| tuxtom Jan 04, 2007 7:04 PM EDT |
Peace. |
| tuxchick Jan 04, 2007 9:13 PM EDT |
>>Because of war we have computers (well actually Nikola Tesla but whose counting).
>>Because of war we have satellites to keep us in touch around the world.
>>Because of war we have the ability to debate these issues.
>>Because of war we have learned the value of peace.
>>Because of war we have learned to set aside distrust and replace it with friendship. You're serious? You really think these demonstrate the goodness of wars? At best, at the very very very very best, they illustrate Pyrrhic victories. But allowing even that is one heckuva stretch. |
| rijelkentaurus Jan 05, 2007 1:22 AM EDT |
>You really think these demonstrate the goodness of wars? I think they demonstrate the saying, "When life gives you lemons, make lemonade." We lost more technologically in WWII by killing 45 million people than we could ever gain doing it...all of those resources just gone, and that doesn't take into account the human suffering and tragedy. Yes, things came from it, but they were not worth the cost and they would have been discovered without the killing. The curiosity of scientists is not driven by the desire to kill people, but yes, sometimes their funding is. That's a sad truth, but it does not have to be that way. Given time and resources, humans are clever enough and curious enough to discover amazing things, not for the purpose of ening life, or for the purpose of saving life, but just to satisfy that itch that asks "Why, how?". We should try it some day. Those billions of people killed in wars in the name of God, over the name of God, over the lack of God, over the color of skin...they represent untold levels of knowledge and advancement that went to waste. How many geniuses did we kill, how many diseases weren't cured because we killed the person who would have asked the right questions, what beautiful art have we missed out on because we killed the painter...and these questions still ignore the human suffering, the mothers who lost sons, the wives who lost husbands, women raped and murdered in the name of male dominance. There has never been a good war. Necessary on the part of one side, perhaps, as they defend themselves, but it was still a bad war. Nothing justifies such human suffering. |
| dinotrac Jan 05, 2007 3:38 AM EDT |
>You really think these demonstrate the goodness of wars? At best, It is different to say war is not good than to say nothing good comes from war. As mentioned earlier in this thread, the end of slavery in the American south was certainly a good thing. Of course, this whole discussion is precious to the point of being silly. War does not arise in a vacuum. The Second World War could easily have been averted by refusing to resist the Nazis and the Japanese. That might have saved some lives. OK, you have to subtract the lives of all the Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and assorted others who would have no place in the new world order, but, at least you wouldn't have war. Art, architecture, music, and fashion would be a little dull, but you wouldn't have war. Terrible things happen in this world. When things are too terrible to tolerate, war may ensue. |
| jdixon Jan 05, 2007 5:52 AM EDT |
> As mentioned earlier in this thread, the end of slavery in the American south was certainly a good thing. Yes, but the Civil War wasn't necessary to end it. The invention of the cotton gin and equivalent harvesting technologies in other areas meant that slaves were no longer necessary to the agricultural base the south depended on. The process would have been slow, disruptive, and not without violence, but it would have happened, war or no war. |
| dinotrac Jan 05, 2007 6:20 AM EDT |
>The process would have been slow, disruptive, and not without violence, but it would have happened, war or no war. You presume that slavery was a purely economic institution. There is reasonable doubt that slavery ever made economic sense, and yet it persisted. Worse, you presume it is OK to tell an unknown number of slaves spanning an unknown number of years that they should wait for their freedom until the market decided they weren't keeping around. Your willingness to keep a population in chains -- brutal, back-whipping, maiming, killing, family-busting chains -- does not speak well for you. |
| jdixon Jan 05, 2007 8:04 AM EDT |
> You presume that slavery was a purely economic institution. There is reasonable doubt that slavery ever made economic sense, and yet it persisted. I think I could make a winning argument that it was largely (though not totally) and economic institution, yes. Regardless, I think that the loss of the economic reasons would have been the breaking point beyond which slavery would not have been tolerated, even in the south. > Worse, you presume it is OK to tell an unknown number of slaves spanning an unknown number of years that they should wait for their freedom until the market decided they weren't keeping around. Your willingness to keep a population in chains -- brutal, back-whipping, maiming, killing, family-busting chains -- does not speak well for you. Dino, I did not such thing. That's extrapolating way beyond anything I said. I merely said that the Civil War was not necessary for the ending of slavery in the south. Whether the quick fix imposed by the war was better than the slower process that I think would have taken place without it is a very debatable subject, and I'm not sure I know the answer. I'll also admit that it's entirely possible that I'm wrong, and that the war was in fact necessary to end slavery, but obviously I don't believe so. |
| tuxchick Jan 05, 2007 8:53 AM EDT |
>Of course, this whole discussion is precious to the point of being silly. War does not arise in a vacuum.
>The Second World War could easily have been averted by refusing to resist the Nazis and the Japanese. That might have saved some lives. It's a stunning leap of illogic to equate "all war is bad" to "when someone else starts a war, you should not defend yourself." |
| dek Jan 05, 2007 9:03 AM EDT |
There seems to be a "stream of consciousness" phenomenon on LXer where threads evolve to follow their own stream regardless of what the original post was about. The social scientist in me finds it fascinating and engrossing to watch the evolution of the threads and this thread in particular. I've drawn no conclusion about any one person but observing the trend is priceless. If I were doing a research project on social trends, LXer forums would be a prime candidate for observation. Really really fun stuff! The format of LXer forums really facilitates this stream of consciousness. Don K. |
| dinotrac Jan 05, 2007 9:14 AM EDT |
> It's a stunning leap of illogic to equate "all war is bad" to "when someone else starts a war, you should not defend yourself." Not so stunning. What does it mean to "start a war"? Does rolling in with tanks and troops start a war or merely an occupation? When Iraq invaded Kuwait, it is reasonable to say that they did not start a war. They took Kuwait and made it theirs. George Bush and the coalition of nations who joined him started the war. Everybody could simply have chosen to play Chamberlain and let Saddam have Kuwait. Were they wrong to start a war to drive Saddam out of Kuwait? Perhaps they were. I doubt that the Kuwaitis would agree. |
| dinotrac Jan 05, 2007 9:24 AM EDT |
jdixon - >Dino, I did not such thing. That's extrapolating way beyond anything I said You're right. I got carried away. Still in "nothing good comes from war mode" absolutism. A good question would be whether Gandhi-style non-violence would have worked. Non-violent action relies to a great extent on the humanity of the oppressor. Civilized people have a limited tolerance to barbarity in their own name. However, a major part of the southern slave culture was about dehumanizing the slaves and making barbarity palatable. Even among abolitionists, the notion of slaves as human beings equal to others wasn't very strong. It's one reason why Frederick Douglass made such an impact. He would go to abolitionist meetings and rise up to speak. Whatever else he may have communicated in his eloquent presentations, nothing was quite so clear as "I am a man". |
| jdixon Jan 05, 2007 9:38 AM EDT |
> A good question would be whether Gandhi-style non-violence would have worked. Agreed. I don't know the answer. > However, a major part of the southern slave culture was about dehumanizing the slaves and making barbarity palatable. Which is why I noted that slavery's passing would not have been without violence. Some people would never have accepted the change. However, I honestly think that without the financial reasons backing it up, most would have backed doing away with slavery. Most people want to do the right thing, and everyone knew deep in their hearts that slavery was wrong. They could lie to themselves all they wanted, but they knew, and that would have eventually carried the day. |
| tuxchick Jan 05, 2007 9:53 AM EDT |
>> It's a stunning leap of illogic to equate "all war is bad" to "when someone else starts a war, you should not defend yourself."
> Not so stunning.
> What does it mean to "start a war"? We're mostly real people here, not lawyers or politicians or PR persons who live to make words dance and sing and do everything except make plain sense. The meaning of "war" is obvious. When anyone invades with troops and tanks, they are making war. I suppose you could call it "trespassing", or "oops, we are like so lost!" or "We're just tourists, pay no attention" or "Oh, we just needed a place to park." "Merely an occupation" is a turn of phrase worthy of the famous Iraqi information minister. An invasion is an act of war (duh) and in Kuwait they came in shooting, which should have settled any doubt over what word to call it. How to respond to an act of war is a separate question. Whether the response is to shoot back, or to behave Gandhi-like, or some other way- there aren't any good options. People are going to get hurt and die, and stuff is going to get destroyed, and I see no way to spin that into being a good thing. |
| jimf Jan 05, 2007 9:57 AM EDT |
> Does rolling in with tanks and troops start a war or merely an occupation?
When Iraq invaded Kuwait, it is reasonable to say that they did not start a war. They took Kuwait and made it theirs. Certainly that was war against the Kuwaitis, abet one successfully completed by Iraq. The question is whether or not coming to the assistance of the Kuwaitis constitutes a defence of an ally or just an excuse for another war. No one questioned that Sadam/Iraq was the bad guy and invader here. Personally I think this one has 'some' justification, although I question the motivation. In any case it was 'perhaps' the best of a lot of very bad choices. |
| dinotrac Jan 05, 2007 10:20 AM EDT |
>People are going to get hurt and die, and stuff is going to get destroyed, and I see no way to spin that into being a good thing. Absolutely. Perhaps its correct to say that any war is a terrible, terrible thing and that any circumstance under which war can be justified must itself be a terrible, terrible thing. Interestingly, that points a big fat finger at Abe Lincoln. The Civil War was not justified on the basis of ending slavery. That came much later. The Civil War was justified on the basis of keeping the Union together. I wonder if that was terrible enough to shed so much blood over. |
| tuxchick Jan 05, 2007 10:28 AM EDT |
>The Civil War was not justified on the basis of ending slavery. Oh lordy, I could start a new thread called "Everything I Learned In School Was Crap". Why did we even go to school? It takes so long to un-learn everything. |
| dcparris Jan 05, 2007 10:40 AM EDT |
As much of a pacifist as I am, John Brown is one of my heroes of the Civil War era. He isn't perfect, I know. Still, he not only led slaves out of slavery (even started a village to help them bootstrap themselves), he actually attempted to free them. His action at Harper's Ferry was one of the catalysts leading up to the Civil War. He was a poor military commander, but he did the one thing most of the rest of the nation was afraid to do. It seared the nation's conscience. Somtimes that is needed. |
| jdixon Jan 05, 2007 11:36 AM EDT |
> The Civil War was not justified on the basis of ending slavery. That came much later. Somebody's been reading real history books again. :) > The Civil War was justified on the basis of keeping the Union together. I wonder if that was terrible enough to shed so much blood over. I can't honestly say it was. Obviously, Lincoln disagreed. |
| dinotrac Jan 05, 2007 11:38 AM EDT |
>Somebody's been reading real history books again. :) A couple of trips to the Lincoln Museum and Library in Springfield didn't hurt, either. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!