| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> 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.
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 infrastructure to enjoy our freedoms. Do you disagree with that?
Did you read the text I quoted?
>
> > 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.
Inappropriate, in that they help restrict freedom?
> I doubt that they much care about what we do over here if
> we'd just stay the hell out of their affairs.
Yep, give them the freedom to choose their on path in "Palestine", Iraq and
Saudi-Arabia.
> Now I'm not convinced that we
> should do that, but the attacks weren't against freedom in any way.
My point. They have had an indirect impact on it, but I dout that was the
real aim.
>
> > 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.
I agree. But this attack, reprehensible as it is, may highlight a few points
which are worth considering. There will be those of refuse to listen to the
truth, who deny it exists - but the truth is still out there.
> And just like the petulant two year old, big people sometimes swat them for
> their behavior.
Not in Scotland:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/scotland/newsid_1541000/1541631.stm
Scott A
>
> Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: War
|
| (...) Disagree. You could be typing from an office in any nation in the world. I would assert (with no intent of proving it) that there are net connections into virtually every nation at this point. (...) We have exploited others wrongly and have (...) (23 years ago, 7-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
