 | | Who are we to judge?
|
|
There are some that say that it is not America's place to say we are morally superior to terrorist regimes, that all cultures must be valued equally. This writer is not one of those people: (URL) is this one: (URL) am I. (23 years ago, 21-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Who are we to judge?
|
|
(...) Those two statements are really quite different, and I see the whole as the beginnings of a convoluted argument intended to illicit precisely the sort of arguments I would mount against it. The first part of the argument is related to one's (...) (23 years ago, 22-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Who are we to judge?
|
|
Snippety snip (...) All? This isn't about Christian(1) vs. Islamic cultures, this is about relatively free cultures vs. relatively barbaric ones. Our culture (faults and all, taken as a whole) is superior to the Taliban (virtues and all). That makes (...) (23 years ago, 22-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Who are we to judge?
|
|
Hello Larry, (...) I can help you a bit with that. What among the things he said was new? What evidence did he present for his statements? Greetings Horst (23 years ago, 22-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Who are we to judge?
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote in message.... <snip> (...) Is this the same speech were he said "You are either with us, or with the terrorists"? I have a problem with this because I certainly don't agree with the US's retaliation, does that make me a (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Who are we to judge?
|
|
I think in the context that this remark was made it was pretty clear what our President meant, and I think the answer to your question is pretty obvious. You're entitled to your opinion. Heck, I don't even have a problem if you or anyone else wants (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Who are we to judge?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Stanley writes: But in the context of the rest of the speech Bush made I think it (...) Well, here's where we get into how slippery and essentially empty the president's rhetoric really is... Nations are not things (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Who are we to judge?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Stanley writes: [snip] (...) So it's OK for GWB to unilaterally dismiss the notion of neutrality? I too am not particularly happy with this particular line. Though my government (and myself) are behind the US in (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Who are we to judge?
|
|
(...) I don't think he's dismissing neutrality - do you? Should a nation continue to host terrorist training camps would you consider it neutral? Should a nation harbour terrorists knowingly and refuse to turn them out or turn them over would you (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Who are we to judge?
|
|
(...) I expect people to clean up their own messes. Holds for my kids, holds for litterers (I have in the past almost been punched for tossing cigarette butts back into the open windows of cars that they just came out of :-) ), holds for polluters, (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Who are we to judge?
|
|
(...) I don't often point out arrogance in others as I've very aware that I sometimes exhibit more than my own share of it. Not sure if you're pegging me as one of these sheep, although if you are I guess it doesn't bother me much, as I don't need (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Who are we to judge?
|
|
(...) Lindsay Braun at an absolute minimum... (23 years ago, 24-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Who are we to judge?
|
|
(...) I would like to bring the people responsible to justice. Just not by whatever means necessary. I believe in a measured approach that risks as few American (and other peoples') lives as possible. I'd just like to point out that if bin Laden is (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Who are we to judge?
|
|
(...) Sorry, I calls them as I sees them. And if anything, I was trying to antagonize people into being anything BUT political sheep. You should do as pleases you. But I wasn't attacking you for anything more than defending the words of a man I (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Who are we to judge?
|
|
(...) Not tenured, adjunct at best. All of our dignity has been thoroughly crushed. :D (Wait, why the heck am I grinning about that?!?) John Ladasky too, but he doesn't poke into .debate AFAIK. best LFB (23 years ago, 24-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Who are we to judge?
|
|
(...) I think Mike's comments here demonstrate a vital tension in Western society, and possibly all societies. One of the defining attributes of social living is task specialisation: farmers, soldiers, leaders. An individual can have many strings to (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Who are we to judge?
|
|
You know, sometimes the mistaken reading is much funnier than the accurate one. (...) I had initially expected to see the asterisk after "skin a cat." My immediate response was "well, yes, but why would you *want* to?" ack, LFB (23 years ago, 24-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Who are we to judge?
|
|
(...) And Bricksmith Brian Stokes too. ((URL) I dunno if he's a full prof or just an instructor or what. He, wisely, stays out of .debate as well. It's kind of like a cross between a drug addiction and the sick pleasure some get in watching a train (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Who are we to judge?
|
|
(...) Try this, for an idea on why that stance may have to shift: (URL) the Obvious" here: (URL) ) --DaveL (23 years ago, 24-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
