Subject:
|
Re: Break Out the Cristal (trickle-down economics explained with champagne!)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 26 Mar 2003 23:44:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
330 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > > We, all of us, are equal nations (or at least should be), and
> > > the second you start thinking that you're better than the rest is the second
> > > that there are second class citizens that are allowed to suffer so you can
> > > live better.
> > I reject your moral equivelance of nations.
> Now look who's misreading--I never said "morally equivelance" at all. Would
> you please read and understand what is being said.
Then you are going to have to explain what you mean by "we are all equal
nations".
> > The second we think we are better
> > is the second that there are second class citizens that are allowed *to be
> > free from their repressive, immoral governments*.
> I like how you inferred that I was specifically talking about Iraq here,
> when, indeed, as posted, I was talking about all the 'third world' countries
> that provide cheap labour for the items you buy on a regular basis.
Thank you.
> > How else do you muster the
> > authority to act *in any way* in the world? What justification did the UN
> > use to intervene in Kuwait in '91? Consensus! I reject consensus as a basis
> > of acting in the world.
> And I like how you use the UN intervention of Kuwait and the subsequent UN
> sanctioned resolutions against Iraq to justify your war today, even though
> you find that the UN is made up of "corrupt, self-interested governments",
> and that the UN, *in no way shape and form* authorized this particular war.
Straw man-- I *never* used the UN to justify *anything*. Contrare, I think
that the UN is a sham! I used the example of the UN's decision to intervene in
Kuwait to show that they acted on the justification of *consensus* rather than
on moral grounds. Likewise, the UN didn't act against SH now based on
*non-consensus*, not on moral grounds.
> > Right and wrong are not subject to the whims of corrupt,
> > self-interested governments. Morality is *not* relative. The US government
> > is *not* equal to the government of China. We *do* have the moral high
> > ground, because we love freedom and liberty. And you are left to *defend*
> > evil regimes
> THe US gov't is not 'morally' equal to *any other* gov't. What makes you
> take the stance that the country, the United States of America is better
> than the country China, or better example, Canada.
China has a repressive communist regime.
> Do you think that
> America is better than Canada, John?
In what way do you mean? In terms of governments, we both have representative
democracies. We are both free. I prefer our flavor, but wouldn't consider our
government morally better than yours at all. They are practically the same.
>
> > such as the ones in NK and Iraq if one self-interested country on the
> > security council vetoes interdiction. I don't care how many self-interest
> > driven governments object to us-- it doesn't make their positions morally
> > right.
>
> No it doesnt--but then again, your position isn't morally credible at this
> time either, so where does that get us?
Depends upon your justification for calling our position not morally credible.
If you cite the UN, then I would dispute your claim. Otherwise it could be
that we just disagree.
> > It's really funny when you and others all agree that Saddam is evil, but are
> > unwilling to *confront* the evil. It's all disingenuous lip service, because
> > in the final analysis, you are not willing to put your proverbial money where
> > your mouth is. Inspections-- what a pathetic joke. You do not love freedom,
> > because you are not willing to make the sacrifices necessary to obtain and keep
> > it.
>
> Again John, anti-war *is not* pro SH.
This is a point of contention. You simply can't assert it so without support.
Just say you disagree.
>
>
> You are blatantly ignoring the atrocities your own 'morally superior' gov't
> sanctions an/or commits. Which part of that didn't you understand? You get
> all worked up because Iraq broke Geneva conventions, but crickets were heard
> chirping form you when your own side did the same. This has nothing to do
> with "Moral Relativism". We can, and should, help those that are being
> oppressed, those that are being wrongfully persecuted. This is not the issue.
> The issue is you and others like you who keep on spreading your own agenda
> under the guise of "moral superiority and say "We condemn that" when "We" do
> the same.
More straw men. Again, perfection is not required for moral superiority.
> >
> > > So again, America is not God's gift to the world.
> >
> > As far as you know. Or did God tell you that personally?
>
> I didn't read about America being Gods gift to the world in the Bible John,
> or do you have a different version than I do? Not that personal pot-shots
> are great 'n all...
You certainly love knocking down straw men. I never said that we were God's
gift to the world or that that assertion was recorded in the Bible. What I did
say was that you or I don't know that for sure, unless, of course, you have
some first hand information that I don't know about.
JOHN
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
79 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
