...or would deliberately lie to the forum, if he believed it furthered his interests. This goes to whether or not someone would want to spend time engaging him and is a valid consideration.

Here I think we come to the heart of the matter. I (and many others, including Christopher) would, all other things being equal, happily lie if there was something to be gained by it. So then, if you are worried by this (you shouldnt be, see below) then ask yourself the question: what does one have to gain? Certianly nothing financially, and it is unlikely to say the least that the way a person is percieved by a group of strangers on a forum will impact other socal relationships. This is what I meant by intellectual interest: the only reason one might do so would be to see how others react to an adopted position. I myself have in the past taken positions purely out of interest and argued them through to their logical conclusions, (though I don't generally claim them to be my sincere beliefs, I don't see the point).

At any rate, I dont think people lying should be a problem here. The fact that someone has some motivation to take a particular position, or even that they might not actually believe it themselves, does not itself invalidate any particular logical argument they might make with respect to it.

Interesting that you somehow know what activity I "only care about" on the forum

By 'you' I really meant 'one' thining in a reasonable and detached manner.

perhaps gigantic would be an apt word, as in gigantic problem, if a person with the following view moved into the house next door: "If no one I cared about was raped, murdered, robbed, etc… I would be completely indifferent towards the act."

I'm not sure exactly why you think this would be a 'problem', even if the group of people this person cared about was very small, there are plenty of good reasons why he is unlikely to start robbing and murdering people at random. You'd likely be far better off living in an affluent area surrounded by such people than in a crime-ridden ghetto; given that the majority of criminals are not unempathic psychopaths yet harm others anyway.

Obviously a non-moral argument could fall victim to a person who, given his stated position, would mislead or provide false information, simply because he happened to think it was in his interest.

If we are talking about logical argument, can you explain to me what sort of false information would significantly effect the debate? Given that on serious debate forums anecdotal evidence is generally disregarded unless backed with a source, and indeed here the vast majority of primary information cited can be had from other independant weblinks.

I meant that personal experiences and actions were not fact ckeckable - matters of public record obviously are.

Whatever it is you are trying to say about facts, it's not detrimental to my argument. The pertinent fact is that Christopher either has deliberately lied to the forum, or would deliberately lie to the forum, if he believed it furthered his interests. This goes to whether or not someone would want to spend time engaging him and is a valid consideration.

So you only care about activity on the forum insofar as it effects the forum itself. Again, that is merely intellectual interest.

Interesting that you somehow know what activity I "only care about" on the forum. And what is "merely intellectual interest"? Is that a special kind of intellectual interest? Because last I knew, a person who would deliberately mislead and provide false information, could indeed have a negative impact on discussions involving intellectual interest.

Essentially, your post amounts to a gigantic 'why bother', failing to understand that there are plenty of non-moral arguments that can be made in such a discussion too. I myself am a nihilist but do not consider discussion of politics/philosophy/sociology to be pointless, nor of morality as a logical system.

"Gigantic"? Hardly. Although perhaps gigantic would be an apt word, as in gigantic problem, if a person with the following view moved into the house next door: "If no one I cared about was raped, murdered, robbed, etc... I would be completely indifferent towards the act."

Regardless, the lack of understanding seems to be on your part Padishah, as evidenced by your statement regarding non-moral arguments. Obviously a non-moral argument could fall victim to a person who, given his stated position, would mislead or provide false information, simply because he happened to think it was in his interest.

9/11. No investigation.

Er, actually there was an investigation, and it released a fairly large and comprehensive book. Does this ring any bells?

You are correct about one thing: both parties behave the same way once in office. Corruption is the norm and not the exception as democratic idealists would have you believe.

The best way to cope? Just sit back and enjoy the ride - even manipulate the system to your advantage when you can - because in the end, it's all going to unravel anyway. The only question remaining now is who will take charge when this over-grown, republican beast govt. of ours collapses under its own weight?

They will just call the migration of illegal aliens they allow to come into our country "the invasion force". Boom. We are being invaded. I guess the KBR "detention centers" are being built for them right.....? lol!!!

"Even worse, twelve Senate Democrats voted for the bill, including the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Jay Rockefeller, who complained that Bush has refused to inform Congress about the details of the interrogation program, then voted to legalize that program anyway."

Rockefeller.... hmmmm.... let me see... a family of bankers AND politicians. No possibility of corruption there eh? Any bi-partisan "democracy" fails ESPECIALLY when both parties simply do the same shit ONCE THEY ARE IN OFFICE.

Please raise you hands if you really think any of these politicians have any credibility.

Are election results really reliable?

Diebold. No investigation.

9/11. No investigation.

Do you guys really think our judicial system has any credibility? Apparently US tax law overrides supreme court decisions, but no Americans care. Apparently Bush & co is above laws set forth by the Geneva convention, but no Americans care. US governments invades other countries based on lies, renigs, but guess what. No Americans care.

This article is old fucking news.

The reigns going to the dems will only slow the further destruction of America down, not stop it.

But this doesn't show any DIRECT involvment in the attack by Sadaam's regime. That's the key here: there is no evidence that Sadaam's govt. contributed resources or intelligence specifically allocated for this operation. Cheny may have overstated the significance of the connection to make a point (a tactic often used in PR campaigns), but he didn't make the crucial error of telling an outright untruth.

Cheny didn't "forge a bond" so much as somewhat exaggerate the existing one. For that, Bush was correct in refuting him. But I didn't see anything in these aricles that equals an incorrect assertion. Cheny was just doing what any PR representative would have done in that position: embellish the truth a little.

"Especially on 9/11". what do you think this means if not being complicit with the attacks? Bush may have backed away from it but was all behind it until that article.

And this, “But on Sept. 8, 2002, Cheney, again on "Meet the Press," said that Atta "did apparently travel to Prague. . . . We have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer a few months before the attacks on the World Trade Center."
They are both an attempt to forge bonds that didn’t exist. You may disagree but I think you are being disingenuous.

These articles only claim that Al-queda and Sadaam were associates before the 9/11 atacks occured (a notion I find quite believable), not that Sadaam had any direct involvment in the attacks. Read an article for context before using it to substantiate a claim.

What you say does have some merit to it: I do have certain intests in these forums, but (as Padishah observed) they are all intellectual in nature. You see, there aren't too many people in my life that I can openly discuss my philosophies with (it would ruin my existing relationships with them), so I decided to pit my philosophies against others while remaining anonymous. So I took up a number of different psuedonyms and argued my points on various forums.

So far, this is one of the more promsing ones: highly-structured arguments, wide representation of philosophical schools, almost no personal attacks, and no reason for me to lie about what I believe or what I do (BTW: that "stabbed mugger" incident is real). This is a near-perfect intellectual sparring ground for me to test my theories against.

That said, I wish to this time to thank the people of this forum for giving me a run for my money: the data I gathered was quite useful. I hope that future debates held will be of similair qulity.

To all of your continued good fortune: may all of you prosper so that I may prosper!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/15/bush.alqaeda/

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/093003C.shtml

and on and on.