Subject:
|
Re: Genocide and terrorism (Was: SW <-> Russia conspiracy)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 19 May 1999 01:05:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
496 times
|
| |
|
|
Sproaticus wrote in message <3741DAFA.C11A9695@geocities.com>...
> John DiRienzo wrote:
> > Speaking for myself, I feel my
> > only duty or obligation is to myself, and not to my brother or anyone • else.
> > To protect and provide for myself. Out of love, caring or kindness I am
> > free to help others, but I have no moral obligation to do so.
>
> Does this include how you relate to your literal brother or sister • (assuming
> you're not an only child)? How about parents, spouse, children, cousins,
> cow-orkers, strangers on the street, mass murderers, presidential
> candidates, parents-in-law, etc.? Surely at some point, you draw the line
> and say "I am keeper of X, but not Y".
Yes, for me it includes any of the above. My family is made up of
productive people, so fortunately I have not been in the position where I
had to take care of my brother. I would not loan money to my brother if he
needed it because of his own irresponsibility. I would let him suffer the
consequences of his actions and learn from his mistakes - a far better
choice than letting him become dependent on me. I would not coddle him in
this case or any other. It is not the same as not caring about him, but it
is the only way I can show that I care. If my borther were a different
creature, like many that roam this planet, he might try to make me feel
guilt or shame for not "helping" him. But then I would no longer deal with
him, because he does not deal with me according to my own rules. If I ever
did loan my brother money, it would be because I want to help a person whom
I respect and like, not merely because he is my because he is my brother and
somehow has a right to my money. I draw the line where ever I choose. I
will help (usually money because I have more of it than time) people I
respect - I respect those who respect me and my beliefs.
> > If you are still reading...
>
> :-D No problem there; this is educational.
Good.
> > My "faith" is not a religion, but only a faith in myself - that I will • do
> > that which is in my own best interest. For me, supporting a system that
> > enables people not to earn their own living is not in my best interest. • I
> > believe I have to work to live (and I live to work) although others • believe
> > they should live without working. I do not willingly support those who • can
> > live without working by taking from me.
> Clarification, please: By saying "work" I assume you're talking about more
> than just employment? e.g. Your proverbial spouse and / or children can be
> unemployed but still be supported by you because they fulfill some other
> need?
My goal in life is the pursuit of happiness. I work to achieve that goal
everyday, so that I may be happy, since I can not be happy by stealing from
others. Having a family, a wife who gives me great pleasure and children,
the fruit of that pleasure both help to achieve my goal. Certainly they can
be unemployed, assuming they are still worthy of respect according to my
rules, explained above.
> > That is the fallacy behind the
> > brother's keeper philosophy (pushed by religions and liberals these • days) -
> > the doctrine which "entitles" people to certain things in life; I am
> > adamantly opposed to entitlements.
>
> And yet Americans are entitled to certain things, from the Constitution,
> referred to in the Declaration of Independence, certain federal, state, and
> city laws, etc.
Name one thing we are entitled to. We HAVE rights, but that is different
from entitlements. Where in the Constitution does it say we are entitled to
welfare, medical insurance, guns? We may have the right to own guns, but it
is certainly not the governments responsibility to provide one for everyone!
Do you follow?
> > Anyway, my stance on US involvement in world affairs. You said we are
> > obligated to act in this situation because of our tremendous power
> > (economically, militarily and technologically). I suppose your rationale • is
> > that we are obligated because the United States is the only country • capable
> > of "helping" and thus it is our "duty."
>
> Ummm, not the only country capable of such, but yes, essentially that's my
> rationale.
>
> > While it might be true we are the
> > only country capable (but I seriously doubt it), I don't think that is • the
> > correct reason for us to be involved. In my view the only reason we • should
> > be involved is if the whole affair will bring an outcome that is • desirable
> > to us.
> An reason other than altrusim? Whoops, that's a different argument, which
> has already been had. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. (1)
> Let's leave altruism out of it.
Let, since I really detest it.
> The situation can be roughly described in marketing terms. We have a bad
> public image; we should try to fix it. It's good for business. It's good
> for our neighbors who do business with us. It's also good for the whole
> melting pot thing -- which is a bad thing if you're against the whole
> melting pot thing.
We have a bad public image? We are showing the world that despite our
advanced military, economic and technological achievements, we can not
handle this situation. This is good for our image? If we were to fix the
problem in a way that actually worked, I might agree. Melting pot is good.
Look at the ex-communists (almost pure altruism) who come here in eagerness
to work, provide for their familes, and add to our economy! I like the
melting pot. Without, things get quite stale.
> > I don't see how the outcome makes any difference to us, so I don't
> > think we should be there! In fact, I can only see this leading into
> > something much worse, so if those who are for it want a bigger war, then • by
> > all means, go for it. That will be the result of our (leaders') actions.
> > Now, if we are going to get a lot of money for spending billions on bombs • or
> > if we could guarantee peace in that region (which is a preposterous • thought)
> > it could be worth it.
>
> I think you're talking specifically about Yugoslavia here.
I was. If we could make our image look good to the rest of the world,
which is something we value too much, it might be a good thing to do. But
we won't; we will look no better, perhaps worse.
> In that case, I don't think anyone can guarantee peace in that region for
> quite a few generations, if ever. But, work can be done to stabalize the
> region, to reduce the level of outward hostility and violence, and to • create
> a calm playing field for our future generations to work out a peace in.
> Since our leaders' administrations tend to be over in less than a
> generation, the odds of this happening are slim. But it is possible and • has
> happened in the past. Germany and the US are at better terms now than they
> were at sixty years ago. The whole US/UK hostility issue has been resolved
> for well over a century. Peace happens, but not in the name of apathy.
Then do it right. Solve the problem. Don't bomb the embassy of your
most dangerous enemy. Don't call it ethnic cleansing - call it genocide or
mass murder. Don't pussy foot around; kick ass and take names! Don't lie
about our objective. That would be good for image, I think.
> > > Scary thing is, is that we're *still* raping nations via international
> > > treaty all the time...
> > That seems to be the nature of man kind (to steal, kill, rape, etc.), • not
> > surprising or scary to me. But are we creating more formidable enemies?
> > That would be scary.
>
> Would be scary? Is scary. That's exactly the effect our Kosovo bombing is
> having with Serbia, China, Russia, probably Yugoslavia's neighbors, and
> possibly quite a few others. Note that a lot of the nations we're turning
> into formidible enemies have a significant nuclear capacity. Is scary.
These nations are other nations, so naturally they are possible enemies.
Actualy the ones you named ARE our enemies, so nothing is changing because
of this. They do the same thing we are doing when ever they have the
chance. It does not frighten me, its business as usual. You and I
basically said the same thing. Its not good to make enemies. But it can't
be avoided; others would do the same if we weren't. I suppose it is scary,
but I am not scared by it.
> Cheers,
> - jsproat
>
> 1. obb5quote :-P
>
> --
> Jeremy H. Sproat <jsproat@geocities.com>
> http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Horizon/5249/
> May the Force be with y'all.
And also with you.
--
Have fun!
John ( ig88888888@stlnet.com ) remove NOSPAM:
John's Lego Web Trade Page:
http://www114.pair.com/ig88/lego/index.htm
MOC,CA[cl,bf,cr,fm,bk+++ wp,dm,rk,df++ fk-]++++(6035)
SW,TR,old(456)+++ TO++ PI,SP+ DU--
#+++++ S LS¼ Hy? M+ A+++ LM-- IC12m
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Genocide and terrorism (Was: SW <-> Russia conspiracy)
|
| (...) Does this include how you relate to your literal brother or sister (assuming you're not an only child)? How about parents, spouse, children, cousins, cow-orkers, strangers on the street, mass murderers, presidential candidates, parents-in-law, (...) (25 years ago, 18-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
29 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
|
|
|
|
