Ask an American, agnostic and atheist man pretty much anything

[graveyardofempires]

are you fat?

[al-arab]

are you fat?

Is this to my? No, why should I be fat? What is this for an post? Don't understand the meaning of it?

[graveyardofempires]

Is this to my? No, why should I be fat? What is this for an post? Don't understand the meaning of it?

it was for the american,the thread says aska an american not you..

[ozymandias]

You are being intellectually dishonest here. The notion that humans have "rights", is a man made, which is not backed by any natural or scientific dictation.

It is surprising that you admit humans are born amoral, environment and society programs them with moral values, yet you go on to state that humans have certain universal "rights", which itself is a notion dictated by the environment/society you are born into. It is not something you are born with, it is something you are thought by your society.

An intellectually honest atheist would realize the futility of such man made notions and not preach them as absolute "facts".

I can understand your confusion. I believe that humans do have universal rights for several reasons -- one, the UN decided as a whole that they do, so now they do, but more importantly, because any intelligent human can build a system of morals out or mutual respect, and self interest.

I think that all humans have a basic set of rights, because as an intelligent, compassionate being, I sympathize with my fellow human. I can feel the desire to minimize their suffering, and in turn minimize the risk that I will be in a similar situation. I can look at a person living under an oppressive government, and imagine how I would feel. I can look at the situation from the government's stand point and imagine why they feel they have the right to do what they do. It's not hard for a rational being to construct a logical ethical system that addresses the worst of the problems and construct a moral system that is geared towards minimizing needless suffering and oppression, and protecting the choices I find important, and should be left up to the individual. I can look at certain issues and see that the decisions made regarding that issue impact no one but the person making the decision, and thus that decision should be left to them to make.

It's not impossible, it's not even hard, to come up with rights that are valuable, and not destructive to outside parties, and decide that every human should possess those rights.

[ozymandias]

My problem with you Ozymandias is that you don't take any responsibility and just marginalize what you did. Don't you understand that you have done it over and over again in the last 50 years?

I'm not 68 years old. I'm not even 50. The actions before my birth cannot be blamed on me in any way, shape, or form.

Always the same mistakes? Do you wan't people to belive that you are not hypocrits? Or evil imperalists that only wan't Arab oil?

I've already addressed this. Repeatedly.

You supported Taliban in the 1980's togehter with Arab countries.

Nope. I did not. My country may have, and that was a terrible decision, that we are trying not to repeat.

You left the same day the Soviets left and did not care with Afghans. 10 years after you attack them.

Already addressed this. Repeatedly. But I will point out once again, that the reason we came back was to clean up terrorist cells we believed were operating out of your country with the support of your government. This may have been wrong, but that is what was told to the American people as justification. As for leaving the same day the Soviets left, I have already pointed out that this is why there is a plan in place for withdrawal this time around, to avoid making that mistake again.

You did nothing in Iraq when Saddam was killing the population from the Gulf War until the Iraq War. Why did you not attack other Arab dictatorships?

Because the American public did not believe that they were harboring terrorists, and because you must pick your battles. Big enough to matter, small enough to win. Look at how long this latest conflict has gone on -- it's barely small enough to win, and you are basically proposing all out war on many of the Islamic states? At the same time? Seriously?

Why did you attack Libya and not Algeria/Tunisia/Egypt? Only because of oil. That is the truth.

It's also the truth that attacking those nations could not occur under the pretext of the War on Terror.

I am talking about your government. Can you not understand the difference between so called democratic eletctions and dictators. I don't remember that you had a dictator in America? Dictators in Arab world were not chosen by their people that is the difference. You are FREE to chose. YOU chose your tyrants, not anyone else. And because of that you have a responsibility!

Indeed, we do. And we are working to exercise that responsibility. The latest president, and many of the lead politicians were elected on a campaign to pull out of Afghanistan, and to reform many of the things Bush did that were wrong -- and these things are happening. We are systematically pulling out of Afghanistan, while avoiding the 'chaos' that occurs with an unstructured withdrawal.

I am not upset about it taking a long time. We have had a ancient civilization for centuries (the oldest in the world) and we did fine. 50 years of dictatorship will not change that.

What my PROBLEM is, is that those dictators were SPONSORED by you, america. And after 50 years of dictatorship you now attack those same people you helped to power because they don't suit your interest anymore. What HYPOCRISY!

It's not that they "don't suit our interests", it's that they (supposedly) supported terrorist attacks against us! A government supporting terrorist acts against a foreign power is no different than an act of war.

And now you just expect us to get democracy over a period of 5-10 years after you invaded us, divided us, destroyed our infrastructure, oil fields etc.

Why don't you attack North Korea? They were and are a bigger threat than all Arab countries? What are you waiting for? Ah, no oil.

Also they have not attacked outside their borders -- and *we are already engaged in a large scale conflict*. Due to the actions in the middle east, many are sick of war here, and need massive justification to back starting another one. Not only that, but remember the comment about wars small enough to win? North Korea is now a nuclear power, with an insane dictator. There is a lot of concern that he would *use* those nukes, and we want to avoid that.

[ozymandias]

are you fat?

No, are you?

What's with all these unimportant, uninteresting questions?

[graveyardofempires]

No, are you?

What's with all these unimportant, uninteresting questions?

hey
you asked us to ask questions ,you are nto to tell us what is important question.

and you are nto to ask questions,but im not fat,or that fat.

why arent you fat?

[ozymandias]

hey
you asked us to ask questions ,you are nto to tell us what is important question.

I was hoping for questions that were a little less trivial.

and you are nto to ask questions,but im not fat,or that fat.

why arent you fat?

Diet and exercise, combined with genetics. I could be fat if I wanted to, but I don't want to.

How about you?

[graveyardofempires]

I was hoping for questions that were a little less trivial.



Diet and exercise, combined with genetics. I could be fat if I wanted to, but I don't want to.

How about you?

i said no questionsssssssssssssssssssssss

but im Fat mroe like phat.

do you use greece for cooking?
why are majority americans dumbasses when it comes to the world?

[Alchemist]

I can understand your confusion. I believe that humans do have universal rights for several reasons -- one, the UN decided as a whole that they do, so now they do, but more importantly, because any intelligent human can build a system of morals out or mutual respect, and self interest.

I think that all humans have a basic set of rights, because as an intelligent, compassionate being, I sympathize with my fellow human. I can feel the desire to minimize their suffering, and in turn minimize the risk that I will be in a similar situation. I can look at a person living under an oppressive government, and imagine how I would feel. I can look at the situation from the government's stand point and imagine why they feel they have the right to do what they do. It's not hard for a rational being to construct a logical ethical system that addresses the worst of the problems and construct a moral system that is geared towards minimizing needless suffering and oppression, and protecting the choices I find important, and should be left up to the individual. I can look at certain issues and see that the decisions made regarding that issue impact no one but the person making the decision, and thus that decision should be left to them to make.

It's not impossible, it's not even hard, to come up with rights that are valuable, and not destructive to outside parties, and decide that every human should possess those rights.

The UN is now the universal reference for morality?

The same UN which has sanctioned the war on Iraq and Afghanistan can "feel" the suffering of the people and come up with a "rational and logical and ethical" system to heal us?

The same UN that has started war in Libya is suppose to be the paragon of "human rights?

What shameless hypocrisy.

Then we have the bombing of handicapped children's centres, the bombing of the Libyan water supply system, the bombing of the factory which produces the pipes to repair the system, the bombing of hospitals, and recently, the bombing of a children's facility...and we can hear the corporate interests behind the scenes.

Spare me the empty rhetoric. If we say that Islam, religion, is the paragon of morals, you'll argue forever on "human rights" ...but then if I tell you that the irreligious institutions have infringed more on the rights of people, you will make some b.s argument that it is "Rational" and "logical" for them to do so.


Like I said, you make petty arguments.

[ozymandias]

i said no questionsssssssssssssssssssssss

but im Fat mroe like phat.

do you use greece for cooking?

Depends on the recipe, and what you mean by 'grease'. I add non-stick agents to the dishes that call for it, but I don't ever add grease -- only oils. I usually drain the grease out of fatty meats.

why are majority americans dumbasses when it comes to the world?

Because intelligent people reacting responsibly does not typically make the news, you assume that the majority of us are 'dumbasses'.

[ozymandias]

The UN is now the universal reference for morality?

Nope. They are simply a group of nations that drafted, and agreed upon a universal declaration of human rights. This gives us a starting point, as these are all things that the majority of governments have agreed upon as being human rights, and the UN is situated to help insure these rights are enforced.

The same UN which has sanctioned the war on Iraq and Afghanistan can "feel" the suffering of the people and come up with a "rational and logical and ethical" system to heal us?

Oddly enough, that very declaration was used as part of the justification for these wars, so yes. Yes they can.

The same UN that has started war in Libya is suppose to be the paragon of "human rights?

Who said anything about paragons? I simply stated that they drew a line in the sand that was nearly universally agreed upon by all nations on this planet.

What shameless hypocrisy.

Where?

Then we have the bombing of handicapped children's centres, the bombing of the Libyan water supply system, the bombing of the factory which produces the pipes to repair the system, the bombing of hospitals, and recently, the bombing of a children's facility...and we can hear the corporate interests behind the scenes.

A quick fact check shows that you are being dishonest here. The UN does not appear to have targeted this places. Instead they targeted the nearby military installations that Gaddafi deliberately situated in these locations -- using these facilities as human shields, hoping to be able to spin these events. Evidently some people fell for it.

Spare me the empty rhetoric. If we say that Islam, religion, is the paragon of morals, you'll argue forever on "human rights" ...but then if I tell you that the irreligious institutions have infringed more on the rights of people, you will make some b.s argument that it is "Rational" and "logical" for them to do so.

And what is wrong with pointing out the truth?

Like I said, you make petty arguments.

You keep claiming that, but have yet to show that to be the case. This is getting tiresome. Just because you repeat yourself does not make it true.

[Alchemist]

well there you have it folks...

Afghans, Iraqis, Libyans, Yemenis all deserve to be bombed and attacked because the UN is protecting their human rights.

Thanks ozy for your rationalism.

[ozymandias]

well there you have it folks...

Afghans, Iraqis, Libyans, Yemenis all deserve to be bombed and attacked because the UN is protecting their human rights.

Thanks ozy for your rationalism.

Alchemist, please stop being so dishonest. I never made that claim at all, and you know it. All you are doing is showing that you have no valid points to make, and instead need to sink to making up lies and spreading them, rather than supporting your own claims.

[Alchemist]

Oddly enough, that very declaration was used as part of the justification for these wars, so yes. Yes they can.

How am I dishonest if you are the one saying that the wars sanctioned by the UN are "justified" on "humanitarian" grounds?