| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > 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.
>
> 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.
I expect there are Rolls Royce’s too.
>
> > Denying the rights to others have given us the $$ to
> > pay for the infrastructure to enjoy our freedoms. Do you disagree with that?
>
> We have exploited others wrongly and have profitted from it. So obviously some
> of our wealth is tainted. It is not the only source. The US is wealthy
> because of much more than some evil acts.
What is your wealth based on then? The 'wealth' of native Americans? The
slave trade?
> > Did you read the text I quoted?
>
> Not all of it.
>
> > > 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?
>
> Inappropriate in that they don't let whomever to whatever they want. Since I'm
> only asserting that that is their impression (or side of things) and not that
> it is objective truth, it doesn't matter.
>
> > > 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.
>
> But what if they choose to be bad?
If Saudi-Arabia were to democratically vote for a Government which is "bad"
(as Israel already has) then they will have to find their own path. We
should not prop them up.
>
> > > 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
>
> Then why the need for the legislation?
>
> Seriously, I'm entirely glad for this Scottish move...weak as it may be. North
> America is moving that way too, but more slowly. And it is high time.
>
> What's funny though, is that they say this:
>
> "Children need to learn from their role models
> that violence is not the right way to get other
> people to do what you want."
Well timed.
>
> And yet it seems to be limited to only certain ages. They would be sticking to
> their stated principle better by just adding minor children to the ranks of
> humanity who are normally protected by the law from assault. That too is long
> overdue.
It will not work unless it is backed up with education for some parents. Too
many take the view of "I was smacked as a kid and it did me no harm". How
can they know that?
Scott A
>
> Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
