Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 17 Jun 2001 23:46:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
676 times
|
| |
|
|
This will be my last long post in this debate. If anyone has points to
debate further with me, please break them down into smaller bite size
chunks, where I can reply quickly. I have devoted far too much time to these
posts, and it is starting to impact other parts of my life.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Matthew Gerber writes:
> > Here we go again. Sorry for the length, but some folks need to have facts
> > pounded in nice and tight before they begin to comprehend.
>
> What do you gain by being smug in your insults? Why not either discuss the
> topic, or not?
Simply giving back in the mode I was replied to in...I guess the toughest
thing for me here is that I find it SO hard to believe that anyone really
can feel the ways you do, I tend to view your statements as facetious, meant
only to incite argument, rather than point the way to true discussion.
What this boils down to is, since I now know better than to try to read
anything into your statements to attribute a modicum of reality into them,
I'll settle for replying with statements that will prove to anyone else
reading the posts that you are an abberation, not the norm, and that in a
real sense, you are someone to be avoided in the real world for anyone who
values their life. You have pointed to violence...not virtual violence, but
a true penchant to do the real thing, and that scares the living hell out of
me. If I was anywhere near you in real life, I would be the one contacting
the authorities about you, and high-tailing it away from you as fast as I
could, before I lost my life for your ideals.
> > Then, don't pretend to know my mind.
>
> I haven't and won't pretend to know your mind. I will continue to assume that
> you mean what you say. I can hardly do anything but.
And if I do the same for you, my statements above stand as written.
> > Maybe I need to put an (s) after each
> > statement meant to be sarcastic?
>
> Maybe you could leave them out.
Not when you leave so much to be sarcastic about, I can't. Also, it is the
way I am. Your choice to continue conversing with me, but like I have said
before: sarcasm, learn to love it.
> > Hmmm...then who is wrong, or is anyone? You seem to think that your opinion
> > is the more valid, and that thought fits the actual definition of 'opinion':
>
> I do (of course) think my opinion is correct. If I did not think so, I would
> have a different opinion. Right? You think that your opinion is correct too.
> It is impossible to do otherwise.
No. Not 'correct'. You state with a religious fervor that your opinions are
right, and all others are wrong. That is not politics, it is blind faith.
> > 1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by
> > positive knowledge or proof: “The world is not run by thought, nor by
> > imagination, but by opinion” (Elizabeth Drew).
> >
> > Unless you are claiming to be an expert, but you don't sound like one here:
>
> Well, I supose it depends on how you measure expertise. I certainly followed
> the events much more closely than did most people to whom I was exposed. I was
> in constant conversation and correspondance about it and I wrote analyses and
> arguements. Still and all, I would hesitate to call myself an expert.
>
> Overall I find your appeal to the dictionary as a tool for insult childish.
> Are you interested in contrasting my stance to your own, or merely in attacking
> me? How exactly would I even go about "proving" my side of this argument? If
> you can't think of a method to do so, then you have no place asking for proof.
> In which case, an opinion is perfectly valid.
Childish, huh? I think what I wrote was clever and quite well thought out. I
certainly got across the points I was trying to make.
> > And if the majority of the people you talked to had an opinion different
> > than yours:
>
> That doesn't make it right. From your assertion about court-ordered "truth"
> and now this appeal to popular "truth" it seems to me that you and I have a
> very different stance on what truth even means.
I'd cleverly cite a dictionary passage here, but you would whine about it.
Your truth is fine for you, even if it doesn't mesh with the reality of truth.
> > > > The fact that you seem to be glossing over here is the fact that authorized
> > > > members of our government were doing their required job by trying to serve a
> > > > warrant at the Waco compound:
> > >
> > > I'm not glossing over that at all. We hadn't discussed any specifics. But • we
> > > can now.
> > >
> > > Why was a team of 76 soldiers needed to serve a search warrant?
> >
> > Ummm...
> > "They assembled large supplies of arms; one source estimated 11 tons of arms
> > including antitank rifles."
> > "4 live grenades, 6 grenade launchers and 48 automatic weapons were
> > recovered after the fire, in addition to 151 legal weapons. Countless rounds
> > of bullets and a number of hand grenades exploded during the fire. When the
> > "bunker" was excavated, about 750,000 bullet casings were found."
> > "They looked upon Koresh as a deranged individual. He believed himself to be
> > Jesus Christ. They knew that he had a huge arsenal of illegal weapons."
> >
> > And, the only soldiers present were three passive observers. These were
> > government agents.
>
> Sorry, by soldier I meant guys in combat fatigues with automatic rifles engaged
> in a military-style operation. I should have been more clear. Who 'estimated'
> those 11 tons? Why does any of that matter? I wouldn't call that a huge
> arsenal. And the number of weapons found divided by the inhabitants fell
> substantially short of the average gun ownership stat for the state of Texas at
> the time.
I guess you missed the whole "need to go take the leader from a large group
of people with a $#!+load of weaponry, we better be prepared" thing that my
cites outlined.
> > > The Sheriff
> > > had served warrant at the front
> > > door of the Mt. Carmel dwelling a few times and had taken Koresh into custody
> > > without threat or fear of
> > > violence and without experiencing any difficulty.
> >
> > Lucky guy. Brave (or stupid) too.
>
> I don't think so. He just did his job properly. Unlike the BATF. Koresh
> wasn't violent. He just wasn't. The local law enforcement community agrees
> with me.
Sure, all non-violent people stockpile weapons for the time when they will
be magically transported to Jerusalem to do battle with tanks. (s)
> > He could have had 750,000 rounds of ammo
> > pumped into him. I wouldn't have gone there (except under orders, if I were
> > an ATF or FBI agent...it's part of the job, you know).
>
> I have collection of fire arms too. Does that mean it is stupid for a deputy
> to knock on my door? If they need to tell me to cut my grass, should they
> engage in a military operation against me in order to carry out the law? I
> don't think so. If a cop knocked at my door, I'd just answer it and hear what
> he had to say. So would have the Branch Davidians.
If you are know to be violent, or a religious zealot gearing up for the
fight for the end of the world, yes, the deputy WOULD be stupid for
approaching your door alone. In fact, he would probably be in hot water with
his superiors for doing just that.
> > > Why wasn't he consulted by
> > > the BATF prior to their
> > > egregiously violent raid?
> >
> > They wouldn't have acted in his jurisdiction without speaking with him
> > first. Do you really dilute your thinking with enough party propaganda to
> > stiffle the truth? I sure hope not.
>
> What party are you talking about. I don't belong to any political party, and I
> never have. I can only report what the sheriff stated to reporters and then
> was published in newspapers that reached my location in Illinois and Missouri.
> The Sheriff said that he would have had no problem taking Koresh into
> custody -- that he had done it before, and that the BATF _did not_ consult him
> on the operation prior to engagement.
On the Libertarian thing, I'm sorry. You seemed to fit in with the party
wags, especially since you were replying to things in this thread...
About the sheriff...sounds like he got some good publicity out of it...I
suppose his is an elected position...
> > > Why did their little warrant-serving army approach
> > > with automatic weapons under the
> > > cover of night instead of just driving up during the day?
> >
> > See above ("Ummm...", although you seem to dislike doing this, I am not
> > going to keep quoting the same things over and over...I challenge you to
> > take the time to re-read the above and find the relevance)
>
> So you continue to assert that such a raid was actually a good idea on their
> part? When all the evidence suggests that they were woefully ignorant of what
> they were getting into? Hell, if they had actually been prepared -- with
> knowledge of the Branch Davidians and stuff, they simply wouldn't have attacked
> that way. The outcome that history has recorded was almost inescapable given
> that approach.
Yes, it had a pre-destined outcome, and the agents probably listened to the
wrong experts... Only, if the BDs were SO keen on their dogma, they would
have realized that 1993 was NOT 1995, when their prophesy was due to take
place, and that Waco, Texas was not Jerusalem, where they were supposed to
fight. Chalk it up to the fact that cult prophesy is changed whenever it
needs to be, to suit the situation.
> > > While I basically agree that they were the only ones with no choice in the
> > > matter, I'm not sure why the needless
> > > loss of adult life doesn't constitute a tragedy in your mind.
> >
> > "Koresh and about 75 of his followers [numbers differ in various sources]
> > died of stab wounds, gun shots, and from the effects of smoke and flames.
> > This included 21 children."
> >
> > I find it hard to believe that the government agents were throwing knives
> > into the compound...
>
> I never suggested that some of them didn't committ suicide. You don't consider
> someone being thrust into a situation where they feel like suicide is the only
> way out is tragic?
They were pre-disposed to suicide. They were trained to it, and probably
practised written plans for how they would go about it. How tragic is that?
Not very! And lets not forget, the children surely didn't kill
themselves...they were the only murder victims here, and by their own
parents no less.
> > I suppose government agents flew their black stealth helicopters over the
> > compound, unseen and unheard, and guys with lit torches repelled into the
> > compound at several different places to touch off those fires?
>
> Why are you even responding? For that matter, why are you even here?
Ah! I've got you on the run now, huh? Using the "insult him out of the
thread" thing now. No go.
I am here to prove that you are an abberation, and that good people exist,
who sanely believe that justice can be done within the systems available to
us. I am responding because if I can keep even one person from reading your
drivil and believing it here, I may have saved one or more innocent lives.
> > "In the resultant firefight, 6 Davidians and 4 ATF agents died; at least one
> > Davidian and 24 agents were wounded."
> >
> > Those Branch Davidians were awfully good shots, weren't they? Oh yeah,
> > 750,000 spent shells found. Right.
>
> I don't follow. They fought back, but so what? Who wouldn't?
Taken out of context. Note utter lack of surprize in my tone. (s)
You point to the 'needless' loss of the adults. I show that they knew
*exactally* what they were doing (i.e. they had 750,000 rounds available to
them, and they did really well in the firefight, killing 4 and wounding 24).
It wasn't needless. It was destined, and in all truth, what they were
prepared for.
> > Once more for those slow on the uptake: THE BRANCH DAVIDIANS WERE STOCKING
> > UP ON ILLEGAL AND LEGAL WEAPONS. THEY WERE PREPARRING FOR THE BATTLE THEIR
> > SPIRITUAL LEADER TOLD THEM WAS COMING. THEY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE DOING, AND
> > KNEW IT WAS AGINST THE LAWS OF THE LAND THEY RESIDED IN. THEY WERE GOING TO
> > KILL SOMEONE, SOMETIME, AND THE GOVERNMENT AGENTS TOOK THE HIT, PROTECTING
> > THE GENERAL POPULACE FROM THE BRANCH DAVIDIANS, BEFORE THEY COULD DO HARM TO
> > THE GENERAL PUBLIC. THAT IS WHAT THE GOVERNMENT IS THERE FOR, AND THE AGENTS
> > WHO WERE WOUNDED OR KILLED ARE HEROES FOR PROTECTING THE RIGHTS AND LIVES OF
> > THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES.
>
> Do you know where they were burried? I need to take a leak.
Hmmm...and *I'm* the one who doesn't belong here responding, huh?
> > > Further, I reject that there were any illegal weapons because laws in the
> > > nation are always secondary to the
> > > ultimate law dictated by the constitution, which is quite clear on this • topic.
> > > There are no such thing as "illegal
> > > weapons."
> >
> > Laws be damned, huh?
>
> That's right.
>
> > Bill of Rights takes presidence over all else?
>
> Yes. It does.
>
> > You
> > might actually want to READ my post in reply to Larry, about the Bill of
> > Rights and it's relevance today. No matter how it happened, the laws of the
> > United States are in place, and part of being a member of society is
> > following the rules as stated.
>
> No. I am a member of society, and I don't follow rules that are unethical when
> I find a reasonable way around them. I simply won't play that game with you
> and your kind.
And you are welcome to do so (not follow rules YOU feel to be unethical).
However, conversely, you have no right to endanger others, who are also
persuing life, liberty and happiness, and you keep referring to the folks
with guns as tragic victims and that you feel violence is justified whenever
Christopher Weeks says it is. It's not a game...it's life. My life, and my
wife's, and my kid's, and everyone else. We as a society make the rules, and
we as a society should follow them.
> > If, in your free time, you want to lobby to
> > change those rules, good for you! That's what an open political system is
> > for. Have fun.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > If, in your free time, you want to plot to overthrow the
> > government, or commit acts of violence aginst innocents to get your points
> > across, you might want to have coffee ready for the goverment officials
> > coming to your door with their warrants.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > > > "How were the fires started?:
> > >
> > > Again, I'm not sure how this affects the tragic nature of the events.
> >
> > They killed themselves.
>
> Wink, wink, nudge, nudge. Now I get it. You think that if you say it often
> enough, someone will start to believe it. I have to think that everyone who
> would fall for that fairytale already fell for that several years ago.
Sorry, it's just tough to type something witty and original to respond to
the same old arguments each and every time you spout again. If you need more
meat, look back to the parts of my posts where I respond with lots of words,
then pretend that I am typing them again. Or use cut and paste. I don't care.
> > > How does incendiary grenades fired by FBI agents sound as a plausible
> > > explanation? I remember sitting on
> > > my couch watching the news as federal agents fired incendiary grenades into • the
> > > Branch Davidian's home as an
> > > FBI official stated to the reporter on camera that they were not doing that.
> > > It was in the background! And
> > > only recently (I heard it on an NPR news program 1-2 weeks ago) the FBI has
> > > admitted to having used such
> > > devices. Duh!
> >
> > Incendiary TEAR-GAS projectiles. TEAR-GAS. Hello? TEAR-GAS is used when you
> > DON'T want to kill someone. The flash-bang action is necessary to help the
> > device penetrate and stun those nearby. Try reading, then try understanding.
>
> So it's no problem that they were firing incendiary devices into a flamable
> structure
The first ones were fired at the concrete bunker. The next ones were
injected at point-blank range. The explosive force of those devices are only
rated to get them through the material, not to ignite it. If you claim to
know weapons as well as you do, you would know these things. The fires that
consumed the above bround structure were started by the BDs. Give it up.
> and lying to the public about it? And after that, when they make up
> this kerosene story (which the local forensic people disagreed with before
> being silenced) we're just supposed to accept that because we're good little
> consumers of the USA?
Excuse me? WHO started the kerosene story? The government? Uh, no. Seems to
be the truth here:
"How were the fires started?: There is one belief that when a tank punched a
hole in a compound wall, it overturned a propane tank which broke into
flames. However, this scenario cannot account for the large number of small,
separate blazes that were observed to start about the same time in many
buildings. There is another belief that Koresh ordered quantities of
kerosene to be placed around the compound and lit manually. This is
supported by the video evidence which seems to show a number of small fires
that quickly combined into a general conflagration."
> > > erosion of justice in the US.
> >
> > Funny thing about that. I wasn't killed in some mis-guided Branch Davidian
> > protest,
>
> Neither was anyone else.
Ah! But it is you who likes to live in "could-happen" land (all the things
that you seem so afraid of the government possibly doing to you). It may
have been pre-emptive, but the problem was taken care of.
> They were attacked in the night by unknown
> assailants. They returned fire. They couldn't leave. They had no way out of
> the situation. God was slow with instruction that they believed they had to
> wait for. They weren't protesting anything at all. They were shot at!
>
> > some brave government agents gave their lives up to protect me.
> > Sounds like justice is working just fine to me.
>
> Some criminal dogs were given their justice. Too bad more of them won't
> follow.
I suppose that to their friends and families, the agents deaths weren't
'tragic'? Oh! That's right! Only YOU get to decide who deserves live and who
should die, as based on your beliefs...oh no, wait...your name isn't God,
it's Chris. And before you try to argue that the government had no right to
kill the BDs, I'll remind you once again, upon fear of your wrath, that the
BDs killed themselves (and from what I remember, God HATES that...waste of
the gift of life and all that).
> > > > Please do not
> > > > propose to lump me into a group when you have no real idea who I am or what
> > > > I believe/think, especially if what you DO know of me from LUGNET will not
> > > > support the lumping-in.
> > >
> > > I only spoke what I saw. Don't lump yourself in if you don't want people
> > > calling what they see.
> >
> > Look! I'm in the civil majority! What was that about majority rules?
>
> Majority rule sucks!
Only to you, since you ain't one of the majority. And let's not forget,
majority rule does not mean blind adherence to the status quo, you need to
allow for some grey in there. People have differing levels of convictions in
their beliefs...well, MOST people, anyway.
> Your silly worship of unfettered democracy is only a
> half-step up from dictatorship. We don't need to be ruled. I don't give a
> rat's ass if you're in the majority. You, right along with the rest of them,
> are wrong.
>
> > And
> > what do the Libertarians hope to become? Oh yeah, the civil majority. Good
> > luck. You obviously have your work cut out for you.
>
> I'm not a Libertarian. I don't hold out the slightest hope of them ever
> becoming a force in the US. It simply won't happen.
Already apologized for that mistake.
> > > > But then, I would guess that
> > > > you don't agree with the ruling, huh? Only thing is, it's been done.
> > >
> > > Of course I don't. I've analyzed the situation with nothing to protect. It • is
> > > blatantly obvious
> >
> > ...to you...
>
> To anyone who looks at all the facts and accounts of what happened and imagines
> what it would be like to be one of them.
Hey, sit in your little Unibomber shack and imagine the day away. I'm gonna'
get on with life.
> > > What does "it's been done" mean? Do you
> > > mean that a court made a decision and so we must accept their findings as
> > > truth? I will never agree to that. I would rather die.
> >
> > I wonder if that would be 'tragic'? Or would you be sure to make it that way
> > by taking a bunch of innocent folks with you to make a statement?
>
> So I guess you won't explain or take a stance on this one? All I get is silly
> ad hominems?
Excuse me? The judgement has been made. Deal with it. IT'S BEEN DONE. Are
you hard-of-reading or something? Or peraps you want to go blow-up some
government building full of kids to make your point?
> > > What about when a state congress rules that pi=3.14 (with out continuing
> > > digits)? What about when a court
> > > convicts a murderer and sentences them to death and kids in J-school unearth
> > > loads of contratictory evidence
> > > that the police didn't or couldn't obtain and it turns out that the state
> > > gassed the wrong guy? The truth is not
> > > defined by a court.
> >
> > It is in a legal sense if you live in the United States. At least right now
> > it is.
>
> Do you believe "facts" because a court decides they are "truth" "in a legal
> sense?"
No, but I am required to deal with them. So are you. Well, in the real
world, maybe not yours.
> > Sarcasm. Lets be blatent. YOUR VALUES SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE AN
> > ACCURATE ESTIMATE OF AMERICAN PUBLIC OPINION. YOU HAVE SELF-ELECTED TO
> > CONTRIBUTE YOUR OPINION HERE, AND CALL IT THE TRUTH. Hope that clears it up.
>
> I don't think that I or anyone else would suggest that _my_ views are public
> opinion. I don't think that. I call the truth, things that I know to be
> correct. It's not that hard.
Seems to be lost on you. Although you are correct: your views are not public
opinion, and God willing, they never will be.
> > > What?!?!? Who did they murder? And who the hell are you to say that their
> > > little religion was false? I mean,
> > > I agree that their pantheon doesn't actually exist, but I think that about
> > > whatever supernatural beliefs you have
> > > too. If you are a Christian (I seriously don't know)
> >
> > None of your business, just like I haven't disclosed my political party. It
> > is not relevant to this debate, unless you really need to draw some lines.
> > But you won't get it from me.
>
> I wasn't trying to hit a nerve or anyhing. I didn't realize anyone considered
> that protected information.
Just not relevant to the debate, no biggie.
> > > No. Each man who fired and the management who sent them there are all
> > > murderers. Each one should be
> > > tried. If I was told by my employer to do that, I would refuse.
> >
> > Unless you had the balls to be a government agent, someone who knows it is
> > in the job description to lay their lives on the line for orders, trusting
> > their superiors to make the calls, and to take the responsibility.
>
> Which they didn't do. No one took responsibility. Reno apologized for the
> mishandling and a few wrists were slapped.
In your opinion. I think we have already covered the ground about just how
relevant that is.
> > Umm...no. I just don't want you to go all nut-case-y anywhere near where me
> > and my family might be in harms way.
>
> But really, my point was that I don't understand why you would think that I
> might possibly do that? I don't hurt anything when I can possibly avoid it.
Asked and answered previously. You can't make the statements you do in other
parts of this thread and then say you try to avoid violence. Frankly, you
sound more and more unbalanced with each ascertation you make.
> > And you get to be the final judge of what and who those evils are? Glad I'm
> > not evil.
>
> Everyone gets to judge. Each of us as individuals have a responsibility to
> judge that kind of thing. I thought everyone knew that.
Gosh, I must be a big ol' dummy. (s) Yes, we all get to judge, but until you
are in a position of power where your belief gets to be the beliefs of all,
your opinion is just not valid, in a big-world sense. Learn to cope.
> > > (I am opposed to McVeigh's execution, like I am all executions, for lots of
> > > reasons. But that's not what I was
> > > saying.)
> >
> > Hmmm...innocents should be bombed into non-existence, and militant
> > quasi-religious groups should have as big a stockpile of weapons as they
> > want before they 'go into battle', but killers shouldn't be executed? You
> > truly scare me. Seriously.
>
> I would be truly curious to see what I wrote that gave you the impression that
> "innocents should be bombed." The Branch Davidians were clearly religious, and
> quasi-militant. I think you misplaced the "quasi-." I've been around
> genuinely militant groups. They have real weapons.
Hell no. The BDs were nothing if not militant. Their religious beliefs were
iffy at best. Read their history.
> Does everyone who believes
> we shouldn't have a death penalty scare you? How odd.
Ah, now words in my mouth. Well, I think that is all the classic debate
failures now.
You yourself have said that:
"(I am opposed to McVeigh's execution, like I am all executions, for lots of
reasons. But that's not what I was saying.)" and then "Some criminal dogs
were given their justice. Too bad more of them won't follow." You claim to
want to follow the Bill of Rights as end-all-be-all law, and then want to
break multiple provisions in it by trying government agents. Your head is so
far up you ass that you don't know when it's day or night. Perhaps you need
to re-examine your opinions and beliefs before posting more in this thread.
<not responding to further remarks, snipped here>
I'm done here. I need to get on with life now, for my own sanity, and my
family's hapiness.
Matt
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Waco (time for a Subject change already)
|
| (...) Yes, you've shown yourself to be the polar opposite of someone else in this forum, and I can't understand why you're not debating HIM. To you, it's "all hail the gubmint, which can do no wrong" or "if it's a law, it must be right". The both of (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Libertarian Propaganda
|
| (...) What do you gain by being smug in your insults? Why not either discuss the topic, or not? (...) I haven't and won't pretend to know your mind. I will continue to assume that you mean what you say. I can hardly do anything but. (...) Maybe you (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
271 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
|
|
|
|
