| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Horst Lehner writes:
> Hello Larry,
>
> > > in the last weeks you have shown me that you
> > > don't understand (amongst other this):
> > > Freedom
> > > Liberty
> > > Freedom of Speech
> >
> > Let's be clear here. I am just NOT going to get into an open ended debate
> > with you on whether I understand freedom or not. That is so laughable an
> > allegation that it's not worth responding to.
>
> It seems to me that this discussion is getting too confrontational. Also,
> for me the question should be WHAT EXACTLY you understand to be freedom
> rather than WHETHER OR NOT you understand what freedom is. In the light of
> some recent discussion, I built some assumptions for your as well as Scott's
> understanding. And, yes, they seem to diverge ...
I think they do to, and that is my point. As I have said before, I think
Larry has a rather selfish view of what freedom means and that is why he is
unwilling to justify his comments in the context of the text I have referred
him to (although he is still welcome to at least try). That text argues that
while those in the west (specifically the USA in the text) do enjoy many
freedoms, those freedoms are based on rather darker activities elsewhere. So
while I agree that the attacks where an indirect attack on freedom as
enjoyed within the USA (and by extension elsewhere in the world), they were
not (as Larry states) an attack on Freedom and Liberty... they were the
exact opposite. They were a reprehensibly selfish and perverse attack for a
little more freedom and liberty in places like "Palestine", Iraq and
Saudi-Arabia. If Larry really did understand freedom he would understand
that, rather living in some sort of state of deluded denial (see his
baseless views on starvation in Iraq or the attack on Sudan). How can these
people be stopped without understanding their motivation? Waving flags at
them will do little. As I said soon after the attack, we need to educate
ourselves and those who show support for our enemy.
Scott A
>
> > Further you don't get to dictate where the conversation goes despite your
> > repeated posting of the same questions and quotes, no matter how hard you try.
>
> As far as I am concerned, answering questions does not necessarily mean to
> follow a certain path in conversation.
>
> Greetings
>
> Horst
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: War
|
| (...) What do you mean 'based on.' I would agree with the assertion that the freedoms we commonly claim to be self-evident and inalienable are freedoms that we are unwilling to let some others in the world live with. And that's wrong. But I don't (...) (23 years ago, 7-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: War
|
| Hello Scott, while I agree to some thoughts of your analysis, I have to oppose this one: (...) In no way does bin Laden or the Taliban stand for more freedom. Look at Iran and, even worse, Afghanistan. Only the leaders are enjoying freedom there. (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: War
|
| Hello Larry, (...) It seems to me that this discussion is getting too confrontational. Also, for me the question should be WHAT EXACTLY you understand to be freedom rather than WHETHER OR NOT you understand what freedom is. In the light of some (...) (23 years ago, 6-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
177 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
|
|
|
|
