| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> 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.
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 believe for even a smidge of a second that our freedoms are based
on denying those to others. We could (and must) have both. Everyone deserves
the freedoms that we consider self-evident.
> 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.
I don't think either of those characterizations are correct. I think the
attacks were attacks against actions of the US that were perceived as meddlesom
and inappropriate. I doubt that they much care about what we do over here if
we'd just stay the hell out of their affairs. Now I'm not convinced that we
should do that, but the attacks weren't against freedom in any way.
> They were a reprehensibly selfish and perverse attack for a
> little more freedom and liberty in places like "Palestine", Iraq and
> Saudi-Arabia.
They were impotent discipline. A two year old gets mad when it's time to leave
the park because the larger human has decided that enough of their time has
been sucked up that way and the little human doesn't understand how the large
one feels. So the little one does little annoying things (crying, hitting,
pouting, claiming hatred, etc). That's what was done to us. They did the best
they could and they might do something again. But in the end it's not going to
change us. Only when and if we decide they have a valid point will we change.
And just like the petulant two year old, big people sometimes swat them for
their behavior.
Chris
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: War
|
| (...) Right now by typing this text in my humble little office I am enjoying my freedom of speech. My ability to do this is based on the past actions of HM Gov and UK industry. Denying the rights to others have given us the $$ to pay for the (...) (23 years ago, 7-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: War
|
| Hello Chris, (...) Making money is not one of your freedoms? Or you don't make money a the expense of the one worldwide environment we have? You pay fair prices for the goods you import from the third world? There are no people starving in Somalia, (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: War
|
| (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 7-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
|
|
|
|
