Subject:
|
Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 13 May 2001 09:58:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
952 times
|
| |
|
|
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
> > I don't need to twist things, I even showed you your own words exactly as
> > you wrote them.
>
> And then misinterpreted them.
I call it as I see it. We don't see things the same way. That much we can
agree on.
> 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.
A tactic? What is this discussion to you, a game?
> 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?
Distortion or logical assumption? Why else would AMERICA put a defense
system up there unless it was to protect AMERICA? Are we putting it up there
to exclusively protect other countries, your so-called intercept service?
You used the example of Iraqi "Scuds" to justify the "need" for the system
and I inferred the rest regarding protecting America. You never said it
"wouldn't" be for protecting America either.
> > 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.
Fine, and I never said anything to imply otherwise. I'm just questioning
your choice of words and the lack of equity regarding who is or has been
belligerent.
> 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.
To hell with your choices. And I don't need to pigeonhole you since you do
such a fantastic job all by yourself, my friend. "Tactic." "Opponent." Is
this some sort of a game? You say China is belligerent, I say check the
attitude since we do the same stuff. It's as ridiculous as eating crap and
losing your appetite when you find a hair.
> > No, warmongering is the angle of charging other nations for missile
> > intercept services.
>
> How so? Please explain.
Because we'd be cashing in on warring nations, rather than taking the role
of the peace broker. We'd sooner fill our pockets than make the same
investment in long term global stability. Is this not warmongering? Is this
not the short term, fast buck approach? I say having the system would then
perpetuate the ongoing need for rivalries and enemies so we can sustain our
profits. We already practice this now, who's to say we'll stop when we
create or "space manufacturing infrastructure?" I say hold off before we get
in over our heads and instead make a better effort at solving our world's
problems. Sounds far-fetched but more worthy of effort than the alternative
of more wars.
> 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?
We should pay our part and other nations should pay theirs. But, if those
other nations cannot pay, we should be considerate and not repeat the
mistakes after WWI with Germany, which helped bring on the next war. On that
note, I feel we are making a big mistake with our sanctions against Iraq. I
have no doubt there will be more conflicts in that region that could be
avoided if we changed our policy. Stability in that region hinges on our
role, yet we choose greed rather than cooperation.
> > My angle is brokering better peace by getting rid of
> > such weapons altogether.
>
> Sounds good. How do you propose to do that, though?
I don't have all the answers but I believe we could start by being a better
example and ease off our exploitation of other countries. If we are to be a
real democracy, we cannot be two-faced about it by supporting our political
opposites whenever it favors our economy. However, we cannot take an
isolationist approach anymore, either. We are now more connected and
entangled than ever, politically and environmentally. Our nation is part of
a chain and perhaps we are the strongest link, but you know the saying... We
need to strengthen the whole chain, not take it apart or strengthen only our
link.
> > 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.
Why write that unless you thought I was singling you out? More paranoia?
> There is a difference between cost recoupment when someone else does
> aggression and starting wars for profit.
And I'm saying America does both.
> 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)
What is this nonsense? As I recall, you took the story out of context (you
even admitted this to me) and started a needless debate over it. You even
stood by and allowed people to further distort the intent of my story. I
wasn't even on LUGNET yet so I could at least defend myself. Out of respect
and the realization that Brickshelf was not my personal website, I agreed
that the JarJar scene was inappropriate AND changed the story AND publicly
offered my sincere apology to those who took offense AND offered an
explanation of the satire's context. Instead of commending me, you
questioned my "convictions as an artist" for not "standing by my work." You
complain about something. Then when someone tries to fix it, you complain again.
> > > 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
As you wish, my friend. I suppose that's another one of my so-called "tactics?"
> > 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.
Yep, standard rants my friend. There's nothing plausible in what I'm saying,
just standard rants right out of the ol' handbook. Glad you were here to
point that out for us. You can rest assured LUGNET is a better place because
of you.
> > 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.
Why not? Shouldn't we at least make one sincere effort before drawing that
sort of cynical conclusion?
> Better to leave those nations that won't see the light to their own
> devices.
The unaimed arrow never misses, my friend.
> 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.
Yes, we should set a better example but keep in mind that leadership is an
instrument of the people and no society should be so conceited as to say
they are morally fit to lead over others. America does not fit the profile
by many standards. Just because we have the money, power and desire doesn't
mean we have the right. That's the sort of arrogant presumption that has
lead to war after war throughout the history of history.
> > 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.
Yes, just some more of my standard rants. Nothing plausible being said here,
move along everybody.
> > > 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.
Yes, standard rants. Quite ordinary, nothing to see.
> > 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.
Greed is never a higher moral issue to me.
Dan
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
