Subject:
|
Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 21 Apr 2004 02:25:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3311 times
|
| |
|
|
Boy I hate when that happens--get a perfectly good tirade going and something
happens with IE! Grr!!! Anywho, this time without the frothing (well, probably
not...)
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
>
>
> > Here's an analogy--there are those who notice that the emperor has no
> > clothes and think to themselves, "Well, that emperor is pretty dense to be
> > walking around without any clothes--look at how much better I am realizing
> > that I have clothes and this 'more powerful person than me' has none!" and
> > there are those that, in a private aside, whisper to the guy, "Psst, hey
> > buddy, you may not have noticed, but you have no clothes on--perhaps you
> > should think about doing something about that."
> >
> > On the one hand, the first is arrogance, 'holier than thou', and just all
> > around pompous. The second one is a friend telling another friend, "Hey,
> > your fly's down."
>
>
> The problem is not the analogy, but your misconception that you are the
> {second} guy in that example.
I am the second guy. Because you chose to misinterpret my intentions, doesn't
make my intentions any less sincere. Am I not having a discourse with some
people who have political sway over their elected representatives? Am I not
opening dialogue with folks who say "because we've got it right" and pointing
out, "Well, maybe that's not so much the case..."
Or are you of the mindset that 'no one gets to hit my kid brother but me'. I
mean, if you are--if you believe that only Americans can critique America, then
we're back to the arrogance inherent in the system.
Either way, I'm the second guy. I'm not ensconsed somewhere 'laughing at the
'superior intellect'' If you don't appreciate that, then I'll just have to work
harder to find a way to convince you that my intentions are sincere. I'm swayed
by good arguements. I don't have a closed mind (at least, I don't believe I do)
but the mentality "That's the way we've always done it" or "status quo" you will
find gets no mileage with me whatsoever. Give me a reason, a legitimate reason
why your way of doing things is better than anyone elses. "Because we've got it
right" when it's quite obvious to most people that, well, the US doesn't have it
right, just isn't a good 'nuff reason (for me).
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > If someone was perpetually screaming "You've got it wrong!", I'd say, "Hey
> > > > Chicken Little! The sky ain't falling" I think I tempered my comments
> > > > with the idea that I like much of what America does. If you didn't pick
> > > > up on that point, eh... ;)
> > >
> > > So....you think I'm wrong? ;-)
> >
> > But you're not wrong all the time--that's the good bit :) As usual, what we
> > have here is a failure to communicate :)
>
> No, I'm just teasing you...well, and illustrating your constant
> fault-finding.
Is this o-t.d? Did I miss a memo? Did this turn into o-t.hug-fest? Well, if
it is--two words--Aaron Sorkin. Two more words--Gene Roddenberry. Few
others--Hollywood (for the most part). First Ammendment. Grand Canyon. USS
Intrepid. Apollo, Gemini, Mercury.
I'll let you in on a little secret (just between friends). I am moved, and
sometimes to the point where my eyes get a little misty, when I hear the Star
Spangled... The fortitude, the history, the sheer wonder that is the US of A
astounds me.
Then people say "Because we've got it right" Doesn't that just scream just the
opposite? John'll appreciate this--In my own personal opinion (not that I'm
going to mention hockey, but, well, I am--In the history of hockey there have
been many great players--I loved watching Bobby Orr when I was *very* young.
Darryl Sittler was my hero. I missed seeing Dave Keon play. But the single
most influential and almost uncontested best hockey player of all time was
Wayne. To see Wayne on the ice was akin to watching magic. Players could
barely keep up with him, yet alone slam him into the boards. Yet not once did I
ever hear stories of him saying "Because I've got it right!" In other words, he
didn't flaunt nor was hearrogant about his abilities. Quite the contrary--He
was, so I'm told, willing and wanting to help others as much as he possibly
could--putting others before him. In other words, he was a genuinely nice
guy--the countles millions of dollars he's raised for various charities--anyway,
I could go on but the point is made,
Papa used to say when I did somehting well--"That's good son, but don't let it
go to your head". Ahh, there's a good quotation.
>
> .
> > >
> > > "Oh, we have both kinds of chips on our shoulders here in Canada: arrogance
> > > and self-righteousness." Someone missed the joke.... :-)
> >
> > Well, I wouldn't attribute that to all Canadians, just the ones who post
> > regularly in o-t.d. Oh wait, that's just me... (hangs head down, kinda
> > shuffles foot over ground, acting all sheepish-like)
>
> And I really didn't mean that to apply to all Canadians, either, but you have
> a tendency to fly off the handle and start frothing at the mouth about
> America and Americans (Don't get me started about "Yankees" again during
> baseball season) and basing the entire analogy on something John wrote
> (hardly an example of the entirety of America). I was kinda painting with
> the same brush to illustrate the point.
Paint away. Basing the entire analogy on something John said. Hmm. Was this
the first time I've ever heard this kind of attitude from an American? Hmmm...
What is the single most obvious point that many folks around the world think of
when they meet Americans? Sure it's a genrealization and I know may Aericans
who aren't--nevertheless, it's not me saying that Americans are arrogant, it's
many many people. And when John, and by what I've seen in addresses, your very
own president (the leader of your country, btw--what he says and does,
unfortunately reflects on the country as a whole--sorry about that, but put up
with JC for 12 years, then come talking to me about faulty leaders) has the
attitude "because we've got it right". Well, you don't. I'm not saying that
anyone does. A point that I've made numerous times. I didn't stand there and
lecture saying "Hey, look to me and mine for a better way because we've got it
right" when it's obvious we haven't. I replied to Scott's post a few weeks back
about the reopening of the seal hunt. My God! I was appalled that my
government came up wtith this idea!
See, frothing happens when there's needless killing, no matter the species.
>
>
>
> > > > Hence the 'Sometimes, to be sure, there's cacophany'.
> > >
> > > Translated: "There is harmony...except when there isn't."
> >
> > Translated: harmony is better than monotony, even taking into consideration
> > that sometimes there may be cacophany mixed in with the harmony--or did you
> > miss that allusion to the Borg--"Resistance is futile"
>
> Didn't miss it - it was just plain wrong and I already addressed that
> inaccuracy.
Ah, no you didn't. You came up with a cute little tangent about SoCal which, as
you've stated below, really is parenthetical so I'll drop the Toronto if you
drop the SoCal/LA. The point is still hanging out there in the breeze, waiting
to be addressed--
America--Melting Pot
Other places--Multiculturalism
Which of those two scenarios is more apt to allow ethnic diversity to flourish?
Which idea eventually leads to monotony--assimilation and which leads to
acceptance of a variety of differing voices-a.k.a harmony?
The very name give it away--melting pot in which everything gets merged together
into one--"we shall add you to our collective." The Borg analogy is so apt it's
not funny.
>
>
> >
> > At the very least, if everyone did things as Americans do, where would
> > Hockey be? And your beer--Ugh!
>
> We just ship the crap to you (admittedly, lots of Americans drink the same
> crap, but lots of Americans voted for Bush - I think there is a connection).
>
> The good stuff is micro-brewed and we keep that here.
>
> Hockey: the less said the better.
Go Leafs Go! (can't say that in o.t-f so I'll say it here)
> >
> > >
> > > Dang, the Wachowski Brothers will probably include that line in The Matrix
> > > Regurgitated.
> >
> > part 4? I'm buying my ticket now.
>
> Really? I enjoyed the first two, but the third was an obvious attempt to not
> resolve anything so that they could make a part 4. Can't delete the digital
> cash cow.
A wee bit of fascetiousness on my part. Seemingly you missed it. You seem to
be doing that alot lately, Bruce.
>
>
> >
> > Toronto, as far as I know, has the most diverse ethnic population in the
> > world. I don't need an entire half of a state, I just need to drive to one
> > city to find it.
>
> Los Angeles county is what I was refering to which isn't even a 10th of the
> state. If I restrict that to Los Angeles city, I think it is around 100
> different spoken languages. Whether or not Toronto is just as
> multi-cultural, less, or more, really isn't the point. It isn't a contest,
> it was simply an illustration that your original assertation was simply
> wrong. Mentioning Toronto is neither here nor there.
Above. 'nuff said
> >
> > further--
> >
> > t...w....o....o....f....f....i....c...i....a...l...
> > ..l...a...n..g...u...a...g...e...s...
> > --....o...n...e.....c...o...u....n..t....r....y....
>
> No.....official.....languages....
I don't think that's quite the case, but I'll let it go.
> >
> > Talk all you want about what ethnicity and differing languages that the
> > people speak--I'm sure Canada could match you (or at least come close) and
> > with 1/10th the population to boot, but how many officially recognized (i.e.
> > written in law') languages do you have?
>
> Answered above.
>
>
>
> Can you call up your gov't agency and demand to
> > speak with them in anything other than english? It's the law here in
> > Canada.
>
> Most government agencies have provisions for a number of languages - it
> depends on the area. I know I can get services provided in Mandarin,
> Cantonese, Spanish, Vietnamese, Korean - I'm sure there are others.
>
> > Not that this is a pissing contest or a denegerating thread into "Us (insert
> > country here) and Them (insert other country here)" ;)
>
> Ummmm, you turned it into that before I bothered to reply. That's what I'm
> trying to get you to realize - but even when I use plain language you
> persist. Oh well....
I don't think I did. I think I pointed out, quite rightly, that it's the height
of arrogance to say "we've got it right". What's more, you know that, Bruce. I
can't beleive that this whole tangent has gone on as long as it has (though it
had many humerous bits, but in the end, were missing Marvin). Either you ere
trying to get me to lose my cool and say somethig as equally arrogant and
pompous like John did with that statement, at which point you would have said,
"Aha! Kettle! Black!!" If this is the case, eh, whatever. If you were just
trying to tweak my nose as a 'wake up call' with regard to my debating style
(a.k.a. 'frothing') well, I get a little passionate when people are dieing
needlessly. Sue me. I calls 'em as I sees 'em. If someone says or does
something moronic, I'll let him know. Just as I'd expect someone to tell me if
I'm being an idiot. As stated, I like to think that I have the ability to be
swayed by a good arguement. Give me one ;)
>
> -->Bruce<--
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
| (...) I am not questioning your intentions at all - I am trying to bring to your attention the consistently strident, holier-than-thou attitude that undermines the often quite valid points you have to make. Moving back up here after reading through (...) (20 years ago, 21-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
| (...) The problem is not the analogy, but your misconception that you are the second guy in that example. (...) No, I'm just teasing you...well, and illustrating your constant fault-finding. . (...) And I really didn't mean that to apply to all (...) (20 years ago, 20-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
97 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
