Subject:
|
Re: Who are we to judge?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 24 Sep 2001 03:32:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
329 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> Most people aren't probably ready for self-rule, being sheep unable to think
> for themselves. It is good for such people to have strong leaders spouting
> empty rhetoric to help them in their times of trouble, otherwise they might
> not know what to do with themselves.
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 you to validate me as a
citizen of this country or a human being able to think for himself - nor, I
doubt, does anyone else.
I just wonder how many of those people you would name sheep have spent the
last couple of weeks busting their asses trying to make a difference in NYC
rather than flapping their gums in cyberspace about it, pumping themselves
up and throwing snide remarks at their fellow "elite" debaters over such
weighty concepts as right and wrong, murder and war, etc.
Some of you guys (you probably included, Richard) obviously keep up with and
know a LOT more about this foreign policy/international relations stuff than
I do. I'm ok with that, and you're obviously pleased with it as it seems
you believe it gives you some sort of elevated right to judge others and
their opinions. We don't have any college professors here, do we? I've
only encountered this level of arrogance among tenured profs before.
Good to know, though, that anyone who isn't interested in seeing this whole
mess in 256 shades of gray is just a simple-minded sheep who can't think for
himself.
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | 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?
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
19 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
