Subject:
|
Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 13 May 2001 22:29:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1226 times
|
| |
|
|
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> I think his point is not that we would _never_ protect American soil with a
> space based defense, but that we wouldn't be protecting the homeland from
> Iraq-launched Scuds.
I understand that and I don't believe, or inferred, that Larry ever meant
protecting America exclusively. But he did use the example of Iraqi "Scuds"
as not a "created or fictitious need" for this defense system. I agree it
may have been a more plausible justification 10 years ago (at least from a
militaristic point of view) but I caution using such criteria or examples
now in trying to justify the "need." I also noted how Larry in his own words
favored the business venture of having such a system and, in my opinion, his
attitude reflects the notion that there will always be rivalries and
enemies. Sadly, I agree that this may be true but I pointed out my feelings
that our nation shouldn't contribute to further warmongering. There is a lot
of money to be made in warfare and we've repeatedly endorsed, even blatantly
contributed to, hostility for our economic gain. I DO favor developing a
"space manufacturing infrastructure" but for the right reasons. I shun the
idea that we should begin through military applications. That's why I
suggest caution and foresight and a true humanitarian doctrine. I don't
think we are ready yet and I see no rush.
> I happen to think that's a fine idea if there is a successful profit model
> behind it. But if we then broker wars simply to siphon money out of foreign
> nations by stopping their missiles, that would be bad.
Exactly, and I see no reason at all to doubt that tragedies may result.
<snipped comments on "belligerent">
Agreed. In retrospect, my inflation of Larry's remarks on China reflected my
disagreement with his previous inequitable remarks in other posts. Do I
think Larry shows equity in his posts regarding American foreign policy? No.
But we're all entitled to our opinions.
A good element in how well we get along with other nations is reflected in
our choice of words. All too often, there is a great deal of bias and finger
pointing when we know deep down we do the same, or worse. We should be
careful that our language toward other nations or societies doesn't reflect
so much hostility that we forget our faults or contributions to a problem.
Even worse, we shouldn't allow our language to demonize or dehumanize other
people either.
> For instance, I assume you have a job, and thus make money. We all basically
> need that in today's world. But just because we make money doesn't make us
> unconcerned with morality.
But HOW we make our money reflects our morality. I find it immoral to desire
making lots and lots of money for ourselves, beyond our true needs, while
others suffer directly because of us. There are many ways to make and spend
money without cooperating with evil. By taking an active role and not
contributing to unethical businesses, we can make the world a better place.
> I think that "more wars" is the status quo. If we do nothing there will be
> more wars. If we build a global missle shield, those wars might be more costly
> and less lethal. That sounds like a win to me.
I never said "do nothing."
> > I feel we are making a big mistake with our sanctions against Iraq.
>
> Oh, me too. We should have, and still should, assassinate Sadam and lead those
> people into a libertopian government. Failing that a representative democracy
> would be OK. Either way, they could be the shining star of the Arab world.
Perhaps I'm slow on the take, but I cannot tell if you're being sarcastic here?
> > 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.
>
> Are all debates needless? What specifically about that debate was it that you
> didn't like?
At the time, I didn't like my story being used as a springboard for a debate
on violence. I was new to posting my LEGO models and here I was fueling a
controversy. I was inspired by all the creativity I saw and I just wanted to
give my new friends (namely the space guys) something neat and fun to look at.
Despite the best of intentions, people still make mistakes.
I agree that the story reflected violence, but it was hypocritical for Larry
to single out the JarJar beating (and twist it's context) but not mention
the other violence (the Adaloid commander being zapped and killed). I never
wanted to produce anything that people took offense to and I was unwise to
post it to Brickshelf in that form, and without a disclaimer.
> > You 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.
>
> You had a net connection right? So you could have gotten involved any time you
> wanted to.
Like I said, I was new to all of this computer posting stuff and ignorant of
the procedures of getting on LUGNET. Also, my internet time was very limited
to whenever I could visit my brother for a few hours to dink around on the net.
> Defend yourself or not, we didn't care. For one thing, no one was
> attacking you, so you would have had a tough time defending. People had a
> conversation...that's all.
Just a conversation, hmmm? As I recall, you implied that I was a "spineless
waste of time" for changing the story. As I recall, people said my story
reflected racism and MY own prejudice and intolerence. People were drawing
very personal conclusions about me in their public "conversations."
> > 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."
> How can you agree that it's inappropriate if you didn't really believe that it
> was?
I DID really believe it was and Larry can even vouch for that. He can verify
that I sincerely apologised for my ADMITTED mistake and that I advocated
more discretion on my part since Brickshelf was not my personal site. He can
verify that he even agreed that the matter was taken out of context and that
I promised I'd be more specific in regard to my intented audience in the future.
> I thought and continue to think that if you thought it was OK, you should
> have left it as is, and to hell with the rest of us having a discussion on a
> forum in which you don't even participate. What would you have done if
> following your change, a hot discussion broke out on one of the SW sites
> complaining that you changed it? You gotta do what you think is right.
I'll decide how I present or censor my work. Making the change was the right
thing to do because my story, in it's original form, was not appropriate for
Brickshelf. I have no problem posting the original story when I have my OWN
website, and Larry agreed with this.
> > You complain about something. Then when someone tries to fix it,
> > you complain again.
>
> Not so. He questioned the reason for the change...that's all.
Not so. He took it out of context and helped inflate it. Then when I
genuinely respected his view and tried to make things better, he questioned
my integrity as an artist. I'm no artist, but I am a human being who makes
mistakes. I have a great deal of respect for the integrity of Brickshelf and
was very disappointed in myself for posting something that offended others,
regardless of Larry dramatizing things.
> > > Some nation has to lead. Some society has to set an example.
>
> > 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.
>
> I'm confused. Are you saying that no people have the right to lead others, or
> are you saying that the US isn't nice enough to deserve that role of
> leadership.
I'm saying that leadership is a tool, an extention of the greater will of
the people, not the ambitions of an individual or particular group (gender,
race, class, etc). I'm saying wealth and power should not be the criteria in
choosing global leadership. I'm saying America doesn't fit the profile.
Again, that's my opinion.
> For the record, I don't think that people should lead by force except when
> protecting basic rights. I think, for instance, that conquoring much of the
> world in order to stop torture would be OK if there is no other way to
> accomplish that end. But for those not stomping on others, we have no business
> dicating to them.
Cool.
> > Greed is never a higher moral issue to me.
>
> I would have thought from your notes that it was.
What I mean, the act of greed itself is not moral. The issue of stopping
greed IS a higher moral issue to me. I apologize for mixing it up.
Dan
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
