RoR: Forum

How else am I to interpret that? You're saying the protesters (which are some of the Iranian people) got themselves into this mess by bringing the clerics into power and that they brought these consequences (oppression and murder in the streets) upon themselves.

You could try interpreting "consequences" as "handing over your governance to theocrats, who would be unwilling (to put it mildly) to allow a peaceful transfer of power to a nontheocratic government", which is what I meant.

A quick review of the history behind how the theocrats gained power: In 1953, U.S. and British agents helped overthrow Iran's democratically elected prime minister, Mohammed Mosaddeq. This coup led to the tyrannical rule of a shah, in reaction to which the 1979 Islamic revolution toppled him from power, despite the fumbling and ineffective attempts by the Carter administration to intervene. So, basically, the Iranian dissidents are now trying to undo a chain of consequences unleashed by boneheaded and counterproductive meddling by the U.S. government. The same U.S. government with a long and checkered history of half-assed attempts to interfere in the region, generally with less than optimal results, such as arming the effing Taliban.

So, I'm extremely skeptical that the federal government, in particular when it is led by Mr. Obama and the same clowns who paid $70B to nationalize a bankrupt auto company that is hemorrhaging cash, ought to try intervening in Iranian affairs. If they can confine themselves to toothless resolutions that pander to voters without doing much of anything (with maybe a handful of covert ops troops stealthily assisting the rebellion without getting caught), I'm OK with that.

Post 41

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 - 10:52am

Jim:

How else am I to interpret that? You're saying the protesters (which are some of the Iranian people) got themselves into this mess by bringing the clerics into power and that they brought these consequences (oppression and murder in the streets) upon themselves.

You could try interpreting "consequences" as "handing over your governance to theocrats, who would be unwilling (to put it mildly) to allow a peaceful transfer of power to a nontheocratic government", which is what I meant.

Again, for the second time, WHICH IRANIANS? I will say this one more time because apparently you didn't get it, 60% OF THE IRANIAN POPULATION IS UNDER THE AGE OF 30. Most of the Iranians protesting had nothing to do at all with the 79' revolution. Why are you holding them responsible for actions they did not commit?

You said: "The Iranian people got themselves into this mess -- they threw the revolution that brought the clerics to power. They brought these consequences upon themselves"

You are grouping all Iranians into one collective, as if they all are the same person. This is blatantly racist, and I await your apology and retraction of this ridiculous statement.

(Edited by John Armaos on 6/23, 10:54am)

Post 42

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 - 11:45am

I don't agree with much of what Jim is saying, but I don't even understand what John said.

To be "racist" requires a discrimination between different races. Words have meanings. And I guess I missed the part where Jim's alleged rhetorical errors constituted a personal wrong to John that deserved an apology.

Post 43

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 - 12:49pm

Steve, this shouldn't be difficult to understand. Jim grouped together an entire ethnicity of people into one collective and assigned blame for the actions that some people took onto an entire ethnic group, including people of that ethnic group that weren't even alive when those actions were taken. That meets the definition of racism. Imagine Steve if you were robbed by a black person, and you blamed all black people for being no good thieves, does that analogy help you understand? If not then I'm appalled that apparently I'm the only Objectivist on this forum that finds Jim's racist statements offensive.

I don't agree with much of what Jim is saying,

Well saying you don't agree with "much" of what he's saying could mean you agree with some of what he's saying. So do you agree with Jim's statement that the Iranian's got themselves into this mess and brought these consequences upon themselves? Yes or no?

To be "racist" requires a discrimination between different races.

To be "racist" could also apply when someone assigns blame onto an entire race for what a minority of people did.

Words have meanings.

Yes they do, and maybe you should understand the meaning of racist because apparently you don't fully understand how it applies.

And I guess I missed the part where Jim's alleged rhetorical errors constituted a personal wrong to John that deserved an apology.

Any Objectivist should find Jim's remarks offensive. I'm surprised you don't.

(Edited by John Armaos on 6/23, 1:05pm)

Post 44

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 - 1:39pm

John, you should take another look. Either you don't understand what the word racism means, or you don't see that you applied it incorrectly.

Jim did not assign a moral blame to anyone on the basis of race, and he did not denigrate a race, as such, based upon actions taken by a minority.

He did NOT say that these protesters are bad because they have some flaw common to all Arabs. And he did NOT say that all Arabs are proven bad because the protesters are doing bad things, and they are Arabs.

You'll notice I used "Arab" instead of "Iranian" since we are talking about "race" - some semblance of a biological lineage, not nationality.

So, which race are you saying that Jim was targeting? Blacks, Asians, Caucasians, Jews, Hispanics? I reread his remarks and can't find it.

And what is the racial trait that he impugned them with?

If you are honest and if you can't find the race you imply he insulted in his remarks, or the trait he assigned to them, then it is you who owes the apology.

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 6/23, 1:41pm)

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 6/23, 1:45pm)

Post 45

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 - 2:46pm

Steve:

You'll notice I used "Arab" instead of "Iranian" since we are talking about "race" - some semblance of a biological lineage, not nationality.

Steve, you are an idiot. The Iranians are not predominately Arab, they are Persian, or otherwise referred to as Farsi, and that is a biological lineage. There other ethnic minorities but to refer to the Iranians as one giant collective, which the Iranian ethnic lineage is predominantly Persian and referring to them as if they act as one individual is indeed racist.

And besides, do you agree with his disgusting remark or not?

(Edited by John Armaos on 6/23, 2:49pm)

Post 46

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 - 3:07pm

Ok after further thought it might not technically be racist what Jim said. But it is in the same spirit of ugly collectivism. The fact is Steve once again you're quibbling over a semantics issue while missing the essentials. Jim made an ugly collectivist remark about the Iranians, claiming that the protesters who are being murdered in the streets brought that upon themselves. If you wish to stay silent and not condemn that remark, I will take that as an implicit sanction of that ugly remark.

So, what do you have to say to what Jim said? Agree or disagree?
(Edited by John Armaos on 6/23, 3:08pm)

Post 47

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 - 4:11pm

John,

The point that I made was that you accused Jim of making a racist remark, that his remark was not racist, and that you called for an apology based upon your mistake.

Then you made disparaging remarks about me, called me an idiot, and have made no apologies to him or to me - even after admitting your error: "Ok after further thought it might not technically be racist what Jim said."

If you think that an objecting to calling someone a racist without evidence is just semantic quibbling than I guess that holding my breath waiting for an apology, for that, or for calling me an idiot, would probably not be a good idea.

I have already stated my position on this thread - look at post #11 where I said, "I'm flabbergasted that people object to our president saying that those young people, engaged in peaceful assembly did not deserve to be attacked, beaten and shot. This is a corrupt, rogue tyranny that falsified election results, advocates stoning women to death for adultery, and advocates, supports and engages in terrorism. How anyone can twist reason about so far as to pretend that anything other than condemnation, loud and clear, is not required is beyond me. Talk about sanctioning evil... that is it." That was posted before your first appearance on this thread - all you had to do was look to see what my position is.

Post 48

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 - 4:43pm

Steve:

The point that I made was that you accused Jim of making a racist remark, that his remark was not racist, and that you called for an apology based upon your mistake.

No, the point is you are quibbling over a semantics issue again while ignoring an essential. Racism is a particular kind of ugly collectivism, and while technically Jim's remark may not be racist (and I only grant that because Iran has other ethnic minority groups besides Farsi, but there are some Iranians I've met that consider "Iranian" to be an ethnic identity, I think the idea is of course at least debatable) conceptually what Jim said is not all that different from racism. But no one can rationally debate what Jim said was nothing more than ugly collectivism. Do you or do you not condemn what Jim said?

Then you made disparaging remarks about me, called me an idiot,

Because you are an idiot, you thought the Iranians were Arab.

I have already stated my position on this thread - look at post #11 where I said, "I'm flabbergasted that people object to our president saying that those young people, engaged in peaceful assembly did not deserve to be attacked, beaten and shot. This is a corrupt, rogue tyranny that falsified election results, advocates stoning women to death for adultery, and advocates, supports and engages in terrorism. How anyone can twist reason about so far as to pretend that anything other than condemnation, loud and clear, is not required is beyond me. Talk about sanctioning evil... that is it." That was posted before your first appearance on this thread - all you had to do was look to see what my position is.

No where in that paragraph does that say "Jim's remarks that the Iranians brought these consequences upon themselves is appalling and rank collectivism"

So I ask one more time, do you or do you not condemn Jim's ugly collectivist remarks about the Iranians?

(Edited by John Armaos on 6/23, 4:52pm)

Post 49

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 - 5:09pm

John,

First: The remark of Jim's that got your panties in a twist didn't occur until post 23 - long after my two replies to the content of this thread (as opposed to my replies to unwarranted personal attacks).

Second: You are the one who wrote in a way that confused "Iranians" as a race - I was clear about my use of the word "Arab" as an example - go read it. You have twice called me an idiot for the mistake you made.

Third: Jim's remark does not demand interpretation as collectivist - that is your peculiar twist. When we say that it was Americans who made slavery a legal practice in our new nation, and it was American's who fought a war to end that slavery - that is not an example of collectivism.

Fourth: Since you are on one of your personal jihads (attacking people on RoR), and refusing to apologize, I'll treat you the same way I did a fellow who used to get drunk pick fights despite having drowned both his decency and intelligence in drink - I just ignored him.

Post 50

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 - 5:21pm

Steve:

First: The remark of Jim's that got your panties in a twist didn't occur until post 23 - long after my two replies to the content of this thread (as opposed to my replies to unwarranted personal attacks).

That doesn't matter. It was a conversation between just me and Jim, now you decided to get involved, over a semantics issue while ignoring the essentials of that conversation I'm having with Jim. So now since you involved yourself, it's incumbent upon you to state what you think of what Jim said. All you said was "I don't agree with much of what he said" but you did not specifically reference the remark that he made that we're currently debating.

Second: You are the one who wrote in a way that confused "Iranians" as a race - I was clear about my use of the word "Arab" as an example - go read it. You have twice called me an idiot for the mistake you made.

Why the hell would you use the example of "Arab" when we're talking about Iranians? Obviously you thought they were Arab. And for the second time, there are Iranians that consider the name to be identifiable with race, I'm only granting that whether it can be considered a race or not is certainly debatable, and the fact that Iran has some ethnic minorities like Turks and Kurds complicates the issue (which again is a non-essential).

Third: Jim's remark does not demand interpretation as collectivist - that is your peculiar twist.

Peculiar? I don't think so, that you don't see that his remark is ugly collectivism is instead peculiar and just outright stupid.

When we say that it was Americans who made slavery a legal practice in our new nation, and it was American's who fought a war to end that slavery - that is not an example of collectivism.

You're right but that analogy doesn't even remotely apply to Jim's remarks. Not even close. He said the Iranians who are now dying in the streets, the vast majority of which were either not even alive or were infants when the Ayatollahs took power, were responsible for the theocracy that was installed in 1979. A more correct analogy would be "Americans today are responsible for slavery, and they should pay reparations because they brought those consequences upon themselves"

Fourth: Since you are on one of your personal jihads (attacking people on RoR), and refusing to apologize, I'll treat you the same way I did a fellow who used to get drunk pick fights despite having drowned both his decency and intelligence in drink - I just ignored him.

First: You were the one that got involved in the conversation I had with Jim. I never addressed or included you in it.

Second: You've said that you would ignore me at least a dozen times now on RoR yet you still engage me. So excuse me if I don't find any credibility in that statement. You will of course continue to engage me, squabble with me over petty semantics, while completely missing the essentials and probably slip in a condescending remark to boot.

Fuck off Steve. I wish you would ignore me because I'm tired of your idiotic and condescending posts.

(Edited by John Armaos on 6/23, 5:42pm)

Post 51

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 - 6:26pm

Deleted

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 - 6:32pm

Deleting message due to Teresa's deletion of hers.
(Edited by John Armaos on 6/23, 6:34pm)

Post 53

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 - 9:02pm

I would like to offer another idea about this controversy, in the form of a question.

Why do some of you think that profound moral importance attaches to pronouncements made by the President of the United States, in this instance on the topic of the bad behavior of the Iranian State toward its subjects?

What is the source of this alleged moral gravitas?

My comment above might appear snide, but I ask the questions sincerely. No one here enjoys the spectacle of Iranian murdering and bullying.

There is a related point I'd like to mention. In just the past two years, the freedom of Americans has come under continuous withering assault. Our economic system has been transformed before our eyes, in the form of de facto nationalization of the bank system; draconian inflation of our money; quantum leaps in uncontrolled Federal spending and borrowing; the nationalization of huge insurance firms, industrial manufacturers, and housing finance; and the grant of vast new regulatory powers to the Federal Reserve System. The American way of life has been permanently altered, from a system of heavily burdened capitalism, to one of state capitalism...the beginning of economic fascism.

People who live unconsciously think this is not that big a deal. They are mistaken. They think that "our grandchildren" will have to pay the bills, but they're wrong again. We are going to pay those bills right away, in the form of immediate economic disintegration and declining real incomes. Our Elected Moral Spokesman, the President, will see to it that all of us have much less freedom, pay much higher taxes (income, value-added, and inflation), pay much much higher interest rates, and struggle with far more difficult lives. If you think this is hyperbole, please...stay tuned.

In light of the rapidly diminishing state of American freedom, I find all this heated discussion about freedom in Iran rather remarkable. We're experiencing an epic crisis in the US, history-making events that will profoundly change the lives of every American. Yet the top political priority of many people who post here appears to be the state of freedom in Iran, a country with a long tradition of ideals hostile to individualism!

This is philosophical confusion. In morality, the value of generosity is necessarily subordinate to the value of productivity; one must first produce to be able to give. In politics, the highest moral priority must be to secure one's own freedom; only then should one crusade for the freedom of foreign populations. For without freedom, one cannot accomplish much of anything.

Post 54

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 - 9:28pm

What do you stand for, Mark? Why don't you come out and provide us with your ideal world, where, I suspect, we won't have a foreign policy? You have not put forth your hand. All we hear is your bluff. I call you, lay your hand on the table, let us see your foreign policy, including whether you believe in a minarchist state at all.

Post 55

Wednesday, June 24, 2009 - 12:29am

Mark,

That is beyond any doubt one of best posts I've read on RoR.

I have a position on Iran, and it differs from yours somewhat. And my definition of what an ideal American state would be might differ from yours a little in the final details.

But I don't see how anyone can really care about our freedom, here and now, and not take pause at the truth of what you've written.

We are living in the middle of the most awful revolution of recorded history - the beginning of the end of the American promise - the first and only nation truly free by design and we are parsing fine points of a demonstration thousands of miles away that may not even have a minor effect on us.

Post 56

Wednesday, June 24, 2009 - 3:28am

Mark,

You make good points. Looking to our own freedoms first is a logical consideration. Yet we are still adrift in a world far less free than us (US), and we are far more influenced by foreign powers and world events now than at any time in the past (a trend fed by ever improving communication capabilities).

Foreign cultures increasingly affect our social policies. Foreign aggression, both state and terrorist, threaten our security and political strategies. Despite the relatively high costs and dismal failures of socialized medicine overseas, such programs are being touted as role models for the US. The abridgement of rights overseas, if not at least criticized, yields an atmosphere of subtle acceptance that will ultimately undermine our own rights.

It is worth considering that for the past 150 years, we (and America Capitalism) have been the greatest cultural influence on foreign lands. As the world's economy has subsequently grown, these other nations are now gaining enough economic strength to influence us. If we do not promote, press our values to them, they will push their values upon us.

So comment and indignation are useful. More comment is more useful.

jt
(Edited by Jay Abbott on 6/24, 3:39am)

Post 57

Wednesday, June 24, 2009 - 11:19am

Jay,

You said, "If we do not promote, press our values to them [foreign nations], they will push their values upon us.

Their values are of no concern to us so long as we hold true to our own values. Their values can not be pushed upon us unless we become a moral vacuum, missing values of our own.

You said, "...other nations are now gaining enough economic strength to influence us." It is not their economic strength that influences us, it our economic weakness which has changed things. And that weakness is a direct result of burdening our businesses with taxes and regulations. Another nation's economic strength is always either neutral or of benefit to us. (Just remember that economics isn't a zero-sum game)

We have always existed in a world far less free than us (US), but we would not have described it as "adrift" because we were anchored with our own values and principles. We are far more influenced by foreign powers and world events now than at any time in the past because we choose to be and because we are more frightened as a people and all this because we are less principled and not attending to our domestic political realities. However you parse it, no matter at what level (political, economic, spiritual, moral, psychological) we need to attend to first principles here at home. All other threats pale to insignificance.

Post 58

Wednesday, June 24, 2009 - 3:56pm

Steve,

Certainly "as long as we hold true to our own values", but the we is not just you and me, or just enlightened individuals. The "we" includes many, many others whose true understanding of "our" values may be more tenuous than we'd like to think. Differentiating between the values embraced by many of these other countries, and the essence of the values which founded our country, is of great importance. The general populace TODAY clearly does not understand the dangers of taking a more socialistic path. We can be critical of other nations destructive systems, pointing out the flaws, or we can ignore them and allow a growing US populace to witness them as 'nothing wrong".

The key reason for concern is the rapidly expanding ability of information to be disseminated without context or explanation, and promoted unmercifully by self-appointed "do-gooders". The growing strength of world economies helps fuel this expansion.

I am certainly not opposed to the wildfire growth of communications, but like many other inventions, it can have unseen effects. People now see huge amounts of data, yet miniscule amounts of true information. In this environment, facts get lost, fictions get support, values get misplaced.

I guess I am saying that we cannot just attend to the message-at-home, we must attend to THE MESSAGE (period, everywhere - as a strategy of self-preservation).

Hope that doesn't sound too paranoid, but I think the world has changed radically (technologically and socially). There are no small audiences anymore, but there can be messages spoke too small.

jt

Post 59

Wednesday, June 24, 2009 - 4:45pm