Subject:
|
Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 13 May 2001 01:12:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1065 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> > And why do you choose to twist what *I* say?
>
> I don't need to twist things, I even showed you your own words exactly as
> you wrote them.
And then misinterpreted them.
> > You misquoted and distorted me, without a cite, then had the audacity to say
> > you were "protecting my privacy" by not citing me. That's rich.
>
> That's a distortion and misquote right there! I said I did cite your example
> indirectly but that I "respected your anonymity" by leaving your name out.
> This is exactly what I wrote in reply to Bruce regarding "Red Dawn":
Sorry. You are correct. There is a *tiny* bit of difference between
protecting privacy and respecting anonymity. Not enough that you can slip a
piece of paper beween them, but a tiny bit. However, it's still laughable as
a tactic, since you did in fact distort what I said.
> "Hah! Classic 80's Cold War paranoia, with Patrick Swayze to boot! The sad
> thing is that paranoia helps sell weapons. I have no doubt that our country
> makes enemies when none are there just to validate military spending. I
> looked back at one LUGNETer's post talking about a space-based weapons
> platform to protect America from Iraqi Scuds. Reality or paranoia?"
And once again, I never said that. I said it would have been nice to stop
Scuds during the war because they were a nuisance (to the Saudi Arabians and
to the other people, Israelis and Palestinians, who happened to be in their
flight path). Not that *our* territory was at risk.
From the post: http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=10263
> Brilliant Pebbles could have, again according to unverified and biased
> sources, stopped the Iraqi Scud attacks with 100% success. Something the
> Patriot system did not do. Those were non nuclear yet still were a big
> nuisance and stopping them early in boost phase would have been far
> preferable to when Patriots stopped them. So I don't see this need as a
> "created and fictitious" need.
Read it carefully. No where in there does it talk about protecting America.
So who is distorting?
> And then I showed you your own posts to indicate where you used the example
> of Iraqi "Scuds" as a reason why we need a better missile defense system.
> This all ties into my point of using paranoia to justify military spending.
Again, I didn't say that. I said that claiming it's a ficticous need is
false. Read it carefully. Nowhere in there does it talk about justifying
spending, just that it is not a fictitious need. Here's an example I have a
need, and it's non fictitious, to own every single one of the 20 "my train"
sets that TLC just released. However, while it is indeed a *non ficticious*
need, it is not one that *justifies* my blowing the several hundred dollars
that it would take to satisfy it. (meaning, I guess, that I am now no longer
9V complete)
> > I use the word belligerent to describe a participant in a war (an accepted
> > diplomatic usage, by the way, you could look it up) and that makes *me*
> > belligerent?
> Really, are we at war with China?
We are not, at the moment, in a hot war with the PRC but to think that China
is our best friend and wishes us nothing but the best is not exactly
realistic. China is striving for hegemony. And it's not the kind like we get
where we put a McDonald's on every corner, it's the kind that results in
marketing events like Tien An Min square.
> Were you being belligerent? Isn't this a
> biased notion?
Here's one of the sentences from
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=10426
> China's days as a belligerent are numbered, unless we screw things up badly
Read it carefully. I refer to China as *a* "belligerent". Meaning that China
does participate in hot wars. China fires missiles at Taiwan to achieve
political effect. China gets in brush wars with India. China tramples Tibet.
No, China is not currently in a hot war with us.
Are you saying China is NON belligerent? Or are you grandstanding? Those are
the choices. I go with grandstanding... you chose to distort what I said in
order to try to pigeonhole me. You're trying to turn the debate from your
failed rhetoric to a false characterization of your opponent. Not a good
debate tactic. Stick to the issues.
> > You say you want to move away from MAD as a deterrent but you then say that
> > building a defensive system that might reduce the risk of rogue nations
> > causing havoc is "warmongering". Think about what you're saying, man.
>
> No, warmongering is the angle of charging other nations for missile
> intercept services.
How so? Please explain. It just seems fair to me that if someone else gets
the benefit of our expenditure (assuming we made it, and I am not sure we
should) that there be some defrayment of the investment.
Do you think it was wrong that the US did not bear the entire cost of the
Gulf War but instead asked that allies pay part? Or do you think that the US
is so guilty of so many egregious things that it should pay for everything
everywhere?
> My angle is brokering better peace by getting rid of
> such weapons altogether.
Sounds good. How do you propose to do that, though? MAD won't do it.
Treaties with the likes of North Korea won't do it. Make them obsolete,
that's the argument of the missile defense proponents. Not one I necessarily
buy.
> However, that is near impossible when people have
> greed in their hearts and somehow believe in war as a sound capital venture.
Who would *that* be, exactly? Not me.
There is a difference between cost recoupment when someone else does
aggression and starting wars for profit. To draw a pretty close analogy,
just because I think policemen ought to be paid for doing their jobs does
not mean that I am pro crime, or pro police, either. This particular class
of distinction is one that gives you some trouble, apparently, as you've
stumbled over similar such recently, and even when you first appeared here.
(recall, if you will, that some questioned whether your JarJar tableaux
ought to have a warning label or not... that meant in your mind that they
somehow were "against" it... you never did get that distinction straight)
> > You say that shuttle launches seriously damage the ozone layer
> I said launches punched holes in the upper atmosphere and that we should
> approach the matter with caution so we don't do further harm to that already
> fragile part of the earth...
OK, I retract that one.
What you did is avoid actually saying it or similar of its ilk, but you did
imply it with luddite rhetoric like
> What are the far reaching environmental consequences of stepping
> up our space program? What sort of mess will our children have to
> clean up because of us? Are we going to revert to the idiotic rhetoric
> of "It's all about saving jobs"? That's the short term, fast buck approach
> for the greedy morons that got us into this big mess.
There's that greed thing again. But if this isn't a standard rant I dunno
what is. Right out of the FOE handbook.
> What's the big rush, unless we are resorting to the cliche arguement that
> "It's all about jobs?" I'm saying proceed with caution and foresight, not
> from the paranoid mindset of the military. Our "next big step" with regard
> to space endevours must not begin until all of mankind has established a
> doctrine of strict humanitarianism and sound environmentalism as well.
And how are we going to do that, exactly? Let me understand what you are
saying, please. Are you saying "no industrialization in space" until every
single country in the world stops oppressing its citizens? Fat chance of
that. Better to leave those nations that won't see the light to their own
devices.
Some nation has to lead. Some society has to set an example. What's wrong
with turning the US into a park that has no heavy manufacturing and no
polluting industry, even if somewhere in the world there still is a pocket
of poverty? If everyone is held to the average, what you get is sinking, not
rising.
> Historically, militarized projects end up only serving greedy, inhumane
> purposes. You say we're ready, I say we're not.
There's that greed thing again. You really must have some issues here.
> > I expect your response is going to be that I'm some sort of anti Palestinian
> > Zionist warmonger who supports whatever cockamamie scheme Bush comes up
> > with, right? That would be 4 different misconceptions in one assertion. Give
> > it a rest.
>
> If that's not paranoia...
Na, it's just going on your track record.
> > In my last post I tried to explain that even though I can think of some good
> > reasons to build brilliant pebbles, I'm not convinced yet that we should.
> > Not for the reasons being offerred at this point, anyway.
>
> Then would you agree that there are higher moral issues at stake here?
No. Just that I don't think it's yet time to build this system and I'm not
convinced we should do it, for the reasons I already outlined. Unless you
say that my thinking the world doesn't deserve to get a policeman for free
is a higher moral issue, which I guess it might be.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
246 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
