Subject:
|
Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 21 Apr 2004 11:35:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3322 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
> > 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..."
>
> 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.
I didn't think I was, but if your interpretations of my writing style is 'holier
than thou', I shall endeavour to rephrase. As it stands, my interpretations of
your debating technique in this thread are--you're firmly ensconsed in what you
perceive to be there, instead of what's really there, and applying what you
perceive me to be and applying that to this arguement, instead of separating the
messanger from the message. But that's just my 'selective interpretation'.
> Moving back up here after reading through the entire message: " Just as I'd
> expect someone to tell me if I'm being an idiot."
>
> Thar ya go!
Thanks. Ditto.
> >
> > 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.
>
> It's the manner and perpetual axe-grinding, not the substance.
Sometimes, rare to be sure, you may find that my passions get the better of me.
This usually happens in cases where people are dieing needlessly, and due to
moronic policies and under the direction of people who are suppose to know
better. Eh, my passions come thru pretty clear.
Well someone has to add a little colour to the group ever since Hoppy left. If
you don't like the style, I'm willing to come to some sort of compromise.
> >
> > 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).
>
> Sigh. You aren't paying attention - all of the above doesn't defend you, it
> instead illustrates why you are the first guy.
No, it illustrates that there is 'inherent nature' of individuals. People like
their own little worldview--it's comfortable gives a false sense of security to
be looking at the world with the attitude that "We're right! no need to see
another side to this!" which is further reflected in the attitudes I mentioned
above. "Psst. Hey buddy! You may want to crawl out of your foxhole and see
that there is, indeed, a bigger picture, wrt you 'being right'" Hey, maybe you
are right. But first, should that cut off the debate on the subject, and
secondly (and somewhat more importantly), does that give you leave to flaunt it?
"We're right! Nyaah nyaah nyaah! Y'all should be doing what we do!" Hence the
Wayne example, which you didn't get, but I understand--the less said about
hockey, the better.
>
> > > 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 take it that this argument is intended to undermine my position on
> legalizing drugs....(or: Say {what}?)
No, you mentioned that all you read from me is constant fault-finding. I
decided to reply in a slightly humorous fashion (something that i'm prone to do
at times). Are you oblivious to the humour in this thread?
"Dave constantly posts about faults!"
Well, I'm positng in o-t.d, where debating about the issues should be the norm,
and maybe, just maybe, during the course of the debate, the issues, or faults,
should be brought up to be debated about, dealt with, and resolved. Maybe I'll
make a humourous rebuttal and further show that there are many many things that
I appreciate about the US by giving an impromtu list. But you didn't get it.
So again, is a failure of communication. Since there is this failure, I shall
endeavour to clarify if you try to read what is written, instead of what you
think I wrote.
>
>
> > Then people say "Because we've got it right" Doesn't that just scream just
> > the opposite?
>
> No - look at they way you write things and apply that comment to yourself.
> You've either just proved that you got nothing right or you just proved the
> speciousness of the arguement you just made.
Again, don't confuse style with content. I've said it before--I love a good
debate and, I believe, I'm not firmly entrenched in my own little vsion of the
world so much that I'm unwilling to be swayed by a good arguement. Because you
don't like the flourishes, I'll try to limit them in the future (after this
particular post--things don't happen instantaneously, you know). I think in
this very NG I've posted my, shall we say, lack of appreciation for the Fiberals
in power, However, that said, if the majority of my posts in o-t.d are
regarding the pResident of the US of A and other political issues coming from
the states, it's only because the influence of the man and the country impacts
on people, countries and events outside the US. Again, I reference my staunchly
held dislike of people getting killed. Further, murdered for no legitimate
reason (not that any reason justifies murder). I am passionate about that. And
then, to add fuel to "Dave's passion"--"Because we've got it right!". Hey,
that's a particular colour of red I saw. Luckily I've learned to govern my
passions. Not as much as those here may like, but I didn't sit respond
immediately and write an ill thought out but off-the cuff response. Instead, I
thought I mentioned "there it is--the inherent arrogance" People are so
entrenched in it that they can't even see it. I didn't go 'flying off the
handle', nor was ther much 'frothing at the mouth.' It was clear, concise, and
offered a humourous example from the Blues Brothers movie of people who have
such a narrow view of the world.
>
> (cutting long story about Gretzky that allegedly makes some kind of point,
> but doesn't seem to apply in the slightest)
It did, as pointed out above, you just chose not to see it.
> >
> > 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.
>
> So, why the gloating about nudity and the idiot who was fully clothed to show
> how Canada allows the opposite and your gloating about it? Holier-than-thou
> example of you being "the first guy", not the second.
Not gloating--again my style may leave a little to be desired--I'll work on it.
I was starting a debate process about censorship, about "7 second delay" on live
events, about Stern being fined by the FCC. If you wanted to read that as
'gloating about Canada', hey, all the power to you. I mentioned that the
purpose of the post, and the 'idiot who was fully clothed', wasn't about
nudity--a point that I mentioned numerous times and yet you seem to be stuck
on--it was about censorship. Failure to communicate. But it's obvious you want
the discussion or you woudn't be here talking about it, so I'm more than
willing.
>
>
> > 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 you will say it as loudly, arrogantly, stridently, repetitively, and
> obnoxiously as you can. Grind that axe.
Kinda like John who arrogantly, stridently, repetitively, and, well, I can't use
obnoxiously for John (for I appreciate him--not that I thought I was either, but
eh, perception is...) grinds is axe. Again, not that this is 'tit-for-tat' for
I didn't think I was grinding axes. I thought, obviously unjustly, that I was
making astute observations--"Oh here's another issue--another tidbit of
information gleaned from somewhere that we may wish to consider. Oh I just
heard this on the news--perhaps we may want to discuss this. Oh I watched the
presidential address and here's what I thought about it!" You can call that
axe-grinding, If I were prone to that, I'd still be talking about evolution and
guns (I'm not discussing those two issues right now, for those of you who
require that clarification--not to say that I won't chime in if said topics come
up in the future. I was swayed by the evolution debate and came to a better
understanding.)
On the other hand, I have this very large grinding wheel in the basement. I can
grind for a long, long time.
>
> 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.
>
> Here's another example of the problem. I didn't say that, and yet here you
> go lecturing me about it. I'll point these things out, and yet you'll do it
> again and again.
Yet that was the purpose of my original post--"Because we've got it right" So
address the original issue and we can let this parenthetical tangent go, well,
tangentially away. It's not a lecture--it was a point. If something walks like
a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck to many various people all over
the world, chances are, it may be a duck. If the French are calling Americans
arrogant, the time may have come to do a little soul searching (humourous
response--just trying to add a little clarity--not meant to degenerate into what
people think about the French people)
>
> 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.
>
> Yes you do. You are constantly boasting about how Canada has it right. I'm
> not arguing whether Canada does or doesn't, I'm talking about what you say
> and do.
I think you missed the posts about the seal hunt and my lack of appreciation of
my political leaders. Because 95 percent of my debating here in o-t.d (which is
predominantly populated by US citizens) is with, well, people form the US, I
wonder why I don't talk about the idiocy, ineptitude and sheer craziness that is
the Canadian Political System. I wonder why that is (strokes chin thoughtfully,
a la 'David Letterman' (another American appreciation, btw). Because I believe
in small 's' socialism and 'free' medical coverage, doesn't mean that I'm
unwilling to point out and discuss the flaws inthe system.
You find a topic of debate concerning my country and I'm more than willing to
discuss. I've never shied away before.
>
>
> > > 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--
>
> No, you made a claim about America, and I cited an example of how you are
> incorrect. You then cited an example about Canada that in no way counters or
> addresses what I said.
No, you shied away from addressing the melting-pot vs. multiculturalism. LA may
have 140 spoken languages. I pointed out that 'Wow, so do other places not in
the US'. But if people speaking the other 139 languages (other than english)
were to need something from the gov't, the language that is offered everywhere
is 1. I did address this before the big IE crash of '04, but I missed it when
rewriting again (so that addresses your point below) I believe that there has
always been, and you can correct me if I'm wrong) a push for the longest time to
make english the official language. I will concede the point that, at this
time, there is no 'official language', i.e. 'written in law' for the United
States. That said, what happens in the real world is that the gov't functions
using english as the 'language of choice'. I guess that's the best way of
putting it. Sure, as you pointed out (again, addressed pre IE crash '04) in
specific 'other than english' areas of population, there will be interpretors to
help the process of communication. I think that's wonderful. But as you are
fond of saying, what's the point? Other places in the world do this as well.
However, outside those segments of population, english is offered.
Are we just getting bogged down? Not to finish the pissong contest, but by law,
any Canadian citizen can go into any federal gov't building and speak with a
govt' representative in either of the two official languages of Canada. Whether
the local gov't office in Moosejaw has a bi-lingual person sitting at the desk
is a matter for another time. Beyond that, this branch of the thread is, in my
opinion, going to get us nowhere. Talking about what the people do in their own
little areas is parenthetical--Toronto trumps LA where the sheer number of
various differing communities are concerned--a point you conveniently ignored,
and whats more, you know it does--you're a well-read person.
But where does that get us? It gets us nowhere.
>
> >
> > America--Melting Pot
>
> Address my example.
Did. For a citizen of the United States to excel in the United States, that
citizen must learn english and use it as the primary language. Whether you want
to be a grad student, or a politician, or to excel in the US, english is the
language you must use. It's not written in law, but, as you stated, makes it
more convenient. Convenience, in this isntance, is ranking right up there with
'status quo' and 'well ,that's the way we've always done it'--though the flip
side is my fundamentally lazy nature, so conveneince, in certain cases, is a
boom, not a bust)
>
> >
> > Other places--Multiculturalism
>
> Canada? You just couldn't squash the French without too big of a fight. :-)
'Tis true. Oooh those French! Maybe the rest of Canada should start eating
Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast!
> >
> > Which of those two scenarios is more apt to allow ethnic diversity to
> > flourish?
>
> You can't draw a valid conclusion from a specious example.
"Rejoice in differences" or "conform to us" is a specious example? K. Got it.
> > Which idea eventually leads to monotony--assimilation and which leads to
> > acceptance of a variety of differing voices-a.k.a harmony?
>
> You act is if monotony is a crime, rather than merely boring.
If everything in your house was one colour. If everything in your 'hood was
whitewashed. If everything that happened in your country happened the same, day
in and day out... Well, not a crime to be sure. I woudn't want to live there,
however.
> >
> > 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.
>
> I'm sure that there are some Indians left in Canada who agree with you.
Yeah, we'ver grown since then, come to a better understanding. Funny how one
should try to learn from lessons of the past. And stumbling and failing will
happen again. Hence the wonderfulness of, well, debate. Let's discuss the
issues--If someone walks around with the attittude "Because we've got it
right"... Kinda givest he impression "I'm right, you're wrong. Discussion
closed." I'd say that's 'firmly ensconsed' in a particular worldview, unwilling
to see 'beyond the borders', so to speak. You wanna address that? You're very
good at keeping track of your points that you think I didn't address. Yet the
first point of this particular tangent is still hanging out there in the breeze.
>
>
> > Above. 'nuff said
>
> Yup, I countered your claims of melting pot, you refuse to address it, and
> instead run on about how superior Canada is. I agree, 'nuff said.
SoCal? Was that not a 'superior than thou'? I just pointed out that there are
other places in the world that can claim same and in a much smaller location.
Just because it happened to be Toronto and thta the Big Smoke is located in
Canada, doesn't necessitate that I was inferring that Canada is superior--if
another city outside Canada could have made the point clearer, I would have used
it. As it stands, late at night one didnt' come readily to mind. Stop
interpreting everything with your rose-coloured "Dave = Canada = Thinks it is
Superior" glasses on. I'm not that guy. I use things around me as references
because they're what I readily know. And if I can start a debate about the
concerns of censorship by using an example from an award show in Canada compared
to an MTV Superbowl halftime show, then I will use said example. It doesn't
mean that I believe in "Canada is soooo much better than <insert country of
choice here>", it's to start the debate. It's to offer an example that I can,
and you may, relate to. Whether my style interferes in said debate--hey, I've
stated--I'll work on it. But on the flip side, you have to start reading what
is actually being said instead of whay you think I'm saying.
> >
> > > >
> > > > 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.
>
> You'll have to because you are incorrect. Admittedly, there are those that
> would like to declare an "official" language (and which substantiates that
> there isn't one by the existence of the very movement), and I think we would
> all be better off communicating under one language, but only because it is
> convenient, not because any one language or culture is superior. But I'd be
> happy with mandating teaching three languages.
Addressed above--I've heard over the years, mostly low key (just above the
background noise), that every so often someone tries to pass a bill making
english the official language. I used [official language' erronously. My bad.
The point is that your gov't does use one and only one language across the
board. I called that 'official'. Eh, whatever. I'll be all sheepish-like for
a bit and move on to the point that english is the language of the US gov't.
Which three languages--Anglais, and what else? This is just for information,
not for debating.
>
>
> > > 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.
>
> See, now here is an example and you just pass over it because it is
> inconvnient.
My apologies. It isn't inconvenient. I wrote a reply, lost it, and tried to
address everything as best I could the second time around. I didn't do a 'line
item' check the second time. My bad.
> > >
> > > > 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,
>
> You did without any prompting by me - that's the whole reason for this
> tangent. Further, you have done so numerous times again during the course of
> this.
Not really. I may be passionate, but arrogance, imho, doesn't enter the
equation. Again, your perception vs what's actually there. "Because we are
right" is arrogance. "Because we may be right but can be swayed by a good
arguement" isn't. The difference between is all the difference in the world.
> at which point you would have said,
> > "Aha! Kettle! Black!!"
>
> I despise that phrase.
My dad left a kettle on the stove once. He was making tea for all of us
kids--we were settling down for the eveing to watch a movie on the telly. All
of us forgot about the kettle until after the movie was over. Yeah, that wasn't
pretty. (see, part of my style is to ifuse every so often a cute little story
which will hopefully amuse the audience and alleviate some tension of the
debate. Eh, style.)
>
> 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.
>
> Well, I suppose this is mean, but why in the world do you think I would give
> you a hard time when I'm a big critic of Bush and his idiotic policies unless
> you were behaving like an...? (Skip back to the top where I just addressed
> this if you are going via order of my typed responses)
Bruce, your history here in o-t.d has shown you to be a level-leaded debater
with sound points and a solid grasp on many issues. I admire your
forthrightness and ability to inject a little humour every so often. I respect
your opinion and have no worries if and when you say "frothing at the mouth" and
"Dave, you's being an idiot!". Sometimes people are in hysterics and need that
slap across the face to bring them back down. I didn't believe I was at that
point. I thought it was selective interpretation and the like. However, the
fault is mine and I shall endeavour to hone my debating style and technique such
that instances such as these become more rare.
That said, you can't expect me to sit back and say nothing when Dubya gets on
national television tries to tell us that 'we're doing this for all the right
reasons'. I mean, a little frothing... just a little. Honest ;)
>
> As stated, I like to think that I have the ability to be
> > swayed by a good arguement. Give me one ;)
>
>
> Like I said, you aren't paying attention.
>
> -->Bruce<--
Like a guy walking up to a microphone-'is this thing on?' tap tap 'Can you hear
me now?'
Like I said, Ithink you're just not reading what I'm writing.
Dave K
-not spell-checked. And is 7 a.m. Two things that contribute to poor typing...
Apologies.
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
| (...) Okay - now, I've deleted all that preceeded this paragraph above because it indulges in everything you just disavowed. There, a clean slate. If you want to go back into the particulars, I'll be only too happy to shoot you down yet again. :-O (...) (20 years ago, 21-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
| (...) It isn't the height of arrogance to claim that anymore than it is the height of arrogance to claim we don't have it right. That is -->Bruce<--'s point. That is also the problem with moral relativism, but I digress. Getting back to "we've got (...) (20 years ago, 21-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
