|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
posted February 09, 2003 05:05 PM |
|
|
|
League of Nations. Basically Woodrow Wilson's brainchild.
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 10, 2003 02:43 AM |
|
|
Quote:
giving EXACT words from the book and you do not...
so who has the narrow mind..lol.
From exact words to narrow mind ... Logic???
If I gave you exact words from my book, you wouldn´t understand them, because unfortunately English is your only language.
Besides, I did not even deny that the political system of "1984" has some resemblances to Stalinism. Even more than those that you mentioned. When the book was written, Hitler was dead, while Stalin was in full power. But there are also numerous analogies to Nazi Germany and quite alot that seems inpired mostly by the author´s fears of totalitarism in general. "1984" is a book about a totalitarian dystopia, not about communism in general, that´s what not only common sense, but also at least 99% of biographies and analyses in the web tell you. (Yes, I have looked at around 10 more, with exactly the same result). Make your own websearch, read how everyone besides you understands and interpretes the book ... but I suppose you´ve already done that and the best thing you found is that sentence about Orwell having grown "more and more disillusioned with the methods of Communism." - which absolutely goes along with what I said. Then you stopped quoting and went on alleging again that "1984" were a book about communism ... obviously you haven´t found a single source that supports your lone view.
Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it. George Orwell, Essay "Why I Write" (1947)
____________
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 10, 2003 02:51 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I think you have a narrow mind yourself on some issues, like politics.
Interesting. Tell me Wolfman, what exactly is narrow-minded about my political views. Please list and substantiate points
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
... well, as many as you find.
____________
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
posted February 10, 2003 04:32 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I think you have a narrow mind yourself on some issues, like politics.
Interesting. Tell me Wolfman, what exactly is narrow-minded about my political views. Please list and substantiate points
Well let's see...
1."If he didn´t have such a rich daddy, that moron would probably be living under some bridge now. "
What is that?
2."Sorry, but that comparison is idiotic and makes another example of your narrow mind. I say that an undisclaimed interview is a news source with a very good chance to be fact. This interview you mention did have some media echo, so a disclaimer would have made sense for sure, if it had been a fake."
What is that? CNN is not a credible source because it doesn't agree with your views, and you call dArGoN narrow-minded.
3.Maybe you’ll remember this
Quote:
3. The plea for clemency goes directly to the gouvernor, so whenever this was denied, Bush was responsible for the death of that person.
(Direct quote from me, couple months ago)
No, the person who committed the crime is responsible. If they didn't commit the crime then they would not die. Pretty simple.
That is the worst of it, I could have found more if you argued more. I think the first time you argued in this thread was pg. 29.
Enjoy!
____________
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 10, 2003 08:37 AM |
|
|
Quote
"Tell me Wolfman, what exactly is narrow-minded about my political views."
Lews I am going to be nice and word this politely. I find it ironic that you can't even see that you have a very strong agenda and narrow view at times. You must be in the thick of it so much that you can't even see it. I have NEVER seen you change your mind or take in new information in these various threads. You are extremely dogmatic and sometimes unreasonable.
Maybe you can share somethings that you have been open to that is different from your political and religious perspective....what are some changes that have occurred in you during this ongoing dialogue? So while you love to charge that I am "narrow minded"...well you might want to glance in the mirror.
In the end I think we both are pretty dogmatic about our various world views. And having strong beliefs is not a problem IMO...it is only when we are ignorant about various views and become illogical that the problem really arises. Informed and logical world views are what I think are the most important.
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 10, 2003 02:08 PM |
|
|
Wolfman, you´re as stupid as your examples.Quote:
What is that? CNN is not a credible source because it doesn't agree with your views, and you call dArGoN narrow-minded.
??? In the said example CNN completely agreed with my view, only Dargon´s interpretation of the text did not.
The other ones are not worth responding to because they don´t touch the subject "open-mindedness" in any way. You just picked out some quotes from me that you didn´t like. Maybe you should try reading easier stuff, this for example may be better suited for your age and intellect.
____________
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 10, 2003 02:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I have NEVER seen you change your mind or take in new information in these various threads.
Then you have a bad memory, in the Ethics thread for example I "lost" a discussion with Snogard.
Quote:
You are extremely dogmatic and sometimes unreasonable.
I may be unreasonable sometimes, but I´m curious to hear what dogma I´m supposed to be following.
____________
|
|
csarmi
Supreme Hero
gets back
|
|
posted February 10, 2003 05:53 PM |
|
Edited By: csarmi on 10 Feb 2003
|
Quote:
Quote
"One more thing to add. It is not Iraq that should be taken out. It is the US. That insane country is more of a danger for the world peace."
Well that statment speaks volumes about its author and to many people in the anti-regime change crowd. Incredible.
Thank you.
But I am no crowd. I am me
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted February 10, 2003 11:32 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Wolfman, you´re as stupid as your examples.Quote:
What is that? CNN is not a credible source because it doesn't agree with your views, and you call dArGoN narrow-minded.
??? In the said example CNN completely agreed with my view, only Dargon´s interpretation of the text did not.
The other ones are not worth responding to because they don´t touch the subject "open-mindedness" in any way. You just picked out some quotes from me that you didn´t like. Maybe you should try reading easier stuff, this for example may be better suited for your age and intellect.
Uh, let me think...no. Those examples showed your narrow-mindedness. And your refusal to accept the examples prove it. And what is with the link?
____________
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 11, 2003 08:04 AM |
|
|
Quote
“I may be unreasonable sometimes, but I´m curious to hear what dogma I´m supposed to be following.”
Dogmatic has a variety of meanings….typically it relates to someone who is sure they are right and everyone else is wrong. But as to what dogma do you hold… it appears to me that you have a relativistic, secular, atheistic, humanistic, liberal dogma.
Quote
“Those examples showed your narrow-mindedness.”
You can never prove to a narrow minded person that they are narrow-minded…because the very fact that they are narrow-minded typically excludes any facts that are outside of their limited vision
on anothor note
Rueters reported today:
“The president also leveled a new charge at the Iraqi leader, accusing him of using civilians as human shields. "In violation of the Geneva Conventions, Saddam Hussein is positioning military forces within civilian populations in order to shield his military and blame coalition forces for civilian casualties that he has caused," “
What a great guy….a beautiful humanitarian.
Also
“On Monday France, Germany and Belgium blocked NATO from preparing for fellow-member Turkey's defense for a possible war with neighboring Iraq. They argued that making preparations for a possible conflict could suggest they had given up on diplomatic efforts at the United Nations (news - web sites) to avert”. "At the moment what it means is that three European countries are isolated from the rest of the NATO alliance. Sixteen countries -- two North American and 14 in Europe -- don't agree with those three countries," Rumsfeld said.“
What sense can this make…to not have northern support and putting Hungry at risk….shortsighted and wrong. If France and Germany want to stay out of it…fine…but don’t impede others, particularly from a nation (Turkey) that is vulnerable.
Also
“Bush has support from Italy, Britain, Spain Portugal, Denmark, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and 10 eastern European nations as well as Australia.”
Wait what happened to the continual false charges that this is a unilateral move?
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 11, 2003 01:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But as to what dogma do you hold… it appears to me that you have a relativistic, secular, atheistic, humanistic, liberal dogma.
An atheist dogma?? That´s rather unlikely lol, because I´m an agnostic. I´ve never denied the possibility of the existence of a higher being or higher beings. Only such self-contradictary nonsense ideas as the Christian god or the Islam god, for purely logical reasons. You are an anti-Zeus dogmatist, Dargon!
The same way you go on ascribing to me a relativistic dogma, just because I don´t share your childishly simplistic world view about good being at war with evil. It seems to me that you do not know what a dogma is. Secular dogma, you´re too funny.
Quote:
You can never prove to a narrow minded person that they are narrow-minded…because the very fact that they are narrow-minded typically excludes any facts that are outside of their limited vision
Exactly, facts like "1984" being about more than just communism. Or sex being about more than just making children. Or unemployment being about more than not wanting to raise one´s lazy ass out of the sofa.
You are intelligent enough to see that Wolfman´s examples are as fitting as what comes out of a dog´s arse. (Simple criterion: You could make the opposite statement and it would have at least the same significance regarding the openness of the stater´s mindset.)
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted February 12, 2003 12:32 AM |
|
|
I know I said I was going, but well I couldn't leave without making one last post in this thread now could I?
Just a few points then:
Point 1: Narrow Mindedness or Courage of their Convictions?
If there's one boring thing about this thread now, it's the childish accusations of narrow-mindedness that has creeped in recently. Dargon thinks I'm narrow minded on the US/Iraq issue, IYY thinks I'm narrow minded on Israel, Wolfman and Dargon accuse Lews of being narrow minded over Iraq/Religion/1984, Lews thinks Dargon is Narrow Minded over Iraq and Germany and so on and so forth. (I don't recall accusing someone of being narrow-minded directly, but if I've forgotten having done so, feel free to remind me, I wouldn't be suprised or offended)
This whole issue all comes down to interpretation basically. One persons principled stance is another's narrow minded attitude. As far as I can see, issues of faith/none faith cannot be narrow-minded as such as they rely on no facts at all, so arguments are entirely on opinion. Issues such as Iraq, Israel etc are interesting as they come down to interpretation of the facts as well as opinions. Most people, no matter their political stance have their opinion and will look for evidence to support it rather than look at the whole issue. Take Iraq, the stance of Germany and France is either
A) A principled stance based on their electorates opinions and an attempt to ensure diplomacy and the inspectors have a chance to do their work
or
B) A craven dodging of the facts and an attempt to avoid their own guilt in causing the problem, and/or an dodgy political attempt to gain popularity to bolster their vote in the light of poor home performance.
Now if you begin with the belief that war is right and the sole solution, clearly no amount of facts of the percentages of the population in those countries against war, no requests from the inspectors etc will ever convince you that B is not correct so you will look for evidence that they colluded with Iraq (so did the US and UK on the flip side of this opinion) or that their vote is stalling on home issues. If on the other hand you believe war is wrong, no amount of history telling you that diplomacy is unlikely to work, no amount of evidence of hiding of evidence by Iraq will convince you that A is not right. You look for ways to discredit america, pointing to Blix's requests for time, lack of support on the Securtiy Council etc.
Is this narrow minded? Slightly, but everyone does it IMO and is therefore not something to be levelled at one person as a crime or immoral attitude. It also shows evidence of principles, remaining with your original opinion and not changing it whenever you come across a obstacle, you just look for other evidence or arguments because you genuinely believe that to be the best way to go forward. Whether that principled attitude is narrow-minded or not all depends on whether you agree with it.
Personally I began with the attiude that we shouldn't attack Iraq with a mass invasion, but persue other means. All the evidence of WMD only goes to confirm that removing Hussain is good, but doesn't nessecarily support 100% an attack in the conventional term of it. Of course because the USA is the main Hawk in attempts to attack Iraq, leading the coallition, this stance brings with it the accusations of "american hater" and others, but that completely ignores the fact that I am just against Blair for it also, or indeed anyone else who suggests such an idea. My principle is that Hussain should be removed from Iraq with as little casualties on both sides as possible, and I believe a full invasion will not acheive this. I am quite willing to argue with anyone, world leader or HC member who disagrees with this, does this make me narrow minded for holding to my principles? If so then it makes us all narrow minded in some way.
Point 2: Name calling
I see that after 29 pages of discussion, we have resorted to simple and childish arguments of name calling. How grown up, usually Lews I can agree with some of what you say, but where is the logical and grown up attitude of calling someone like wolfman a person with the mental age of a toddler? Congratulations, the best in serious discussion here has resorted to that and accusations of narrow-mindedness. Is this really what debating an issue is about?
Point 3: The Reuters Report
Interesting, if extremely vauge report, with a conclusion that you draw, without either needing to investigate further or you didn't include further information you may have read. Allow me to point out something to you, placing armed forces in civilian areas is not human shield tactics, it's common practice in many nations. An example I will offer is the small peninsula I live on called the Wirral. It lies between Wales and Liverpool and contains roughly 200,000 people. Give or take a few it's about 30 miles long by 20 wide.
In this small area there is a vast naval dockyards (now closed, but still retains the ability to restart production), it's size being sufficient in the past to produce the largest British Battleship and Carrier of WWII. There's a small, but military capable airfield, a vast oil refinery, and within 5 miles 2 major army bases (one regular army, one Reservists). All of these exist within a highly built up area, I myself live within 1/2 a mile of the dockyard. Is this not using the same tactics?
Think about it, if you were in charge of defending iraq in the forthcoming war I would suggest that since any invading force would target towns and cities to occupy the country, meaning the Iraqui army would be best suited to defending those areas, especially since they will be rendered mostly static with the allied air power. It's a tactic that the allies of WWII used in cities like stalingrad, no-one's yet seriously suggested that Stalingrad was anything less than a vital and well fought battle with sensible strategy by the russians.
Simply placing the army in defensive positions within a town or city is not using a human shield tactic, placing bunkers in schoolyards and SAM sites on hospitals could be considered such, (unless they had evacuated said sites) but unless there is clearer evidence of what Bush (I assume it meant bush by president) meant exactly, it's not garunteed that this is anything more than propaganda thrown up to raise support for the allies, by taking a relatively well used military tactic and giving it an evil sounding name without clear supporting evidence of it being true. It could also be that the evidence and detail are not included in your post, or not in the report, but without them I think it better to withold judgement on such a tactic until such evidence is forthcoming rather than assume.
Point 4: Nato
Interesting, this harks back to point 1. The Pro War people see this move as ungrateful and pointlessly drag up evocative images of D-day and the US committment to "saving" Europe to support their cause. They accuse Germany and France of betraying the alliance. Of course you could also, with supporting evidence claim that this is them representing their electorate's wishes and also that they are trying to persue diplomatic means to the fullest extent and avoiding what they see as a unecessary war by provoking Hussain and jeprodising peace through telegraphing even further the intention to invade.
Both are standing up for the principles they have shown recently, holding to their ways of solving the crisis rather than bending in the wind with each new issue. Whether one or the other is right, to fault the opposing side for their stance when the believe in it fully is pointless rhetoric gone mad.
I'd also like to point out the fact that 2 of the 3 nations are pretty much the 2 most powerful nations in Europe and are major players in Nato. Nato has pretty much outlived it's purpose right now, it's being used for offensive operations (kossovo and maybe now Iraq) where the original notion was for defensive operations. Now that Nato has lost it's way and purpose, it's hardly suprising that it's members feel free to decide they will or won't involve themselves in operations beyond the remit of what they signed up for.
Sure the weapons etc will be used for a defensive nature, but they will be used in all likelyhood (sadam's unlikely to be mad enough to strike first) be used after an Offensive operation that brought that retaliation. Nato does not exist to allow members to invade countries and get automatic backing of nations that have no wish to see that invasion. It would set a dangerous precedent to allow such a thing.
Besides this fact, I'm sure that if the USA and others wanted to base weapons in Turkey they will find a way around nato to do so. The whole thing sounds too much like an attempt to discredit the principled stand of two nations by making them look like traitors.
Point 5: Unilateral Action?
As I said before, name the ones intending to send more than a token force. In the 1st Gulf War most european nations claimed involvement, whereas the reality was most only sent 2 ships and observers. How many of them will be sending 36,000 troops or more? (britain's CURRENT committment, this may rise) Italy has already pretty much ruled out the notion of troops. It seems many will talk a good war, but none will put their money where their mouth is. As for the charges, most of those now backing America did not until recently, so the charges were true at the time. You can't fault people for not reading into the future when the future involve the opinions of politicians opinions and not the people of those countries.
Point 6: 1984
*sighs* this really does cause some problems doesn't it? 1984, I've not even read the book, hence why I've stayed out of discussion over it thus far. To add something though, it's clear that the book contains elements about a governmental system that fits both Facism, Stalinism and some of Modern democratic life. Whether it was meant to be about communism is mostly irrelevant as it also fits the other systems also. So whilst Dargon is right in such that it's written as an comment on Stalins methods, it's also clear that the same comments could be made to McArthy or the methods of some democratic nations today, meaning Lews is correct. It's intention is irrelevant in such that it can be USED as an attack on both sides of the political coin and fits both equally.
You're both right, but you refuse to see that the other has a point in that one is taking the literal intention of the book, and the other is looking at the impact and lesson the book had. If you just sat and realised that the argument becomes pointless.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted February 12, 2003 03:06 AM |
|
|
Wow, what a post, that deserves a qp(if you care about things like that).
I do have a few things to point out though:
Quote:
Wolfman and Dargon accuse Lews of being narrow minded over Iraq/Religion/1984
Iraq, yes. Religion, I don't remember that. 1984, I tried to mediate the issue (it didn't work though)
Quote:
where is the logical and grown up attitude of calling someone like wolfman a person with the mental age of a toddler?
Thank you!
Quote:
the best in serious discussion here has resorted to that and accusations of narrow-mindedness.
Who did you mean?
I said what I said because Lews tried to defend himself by saying such things against others. Then he wanted me to find examples and I did.
Great post
____________
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 12, 2003 05:57 AM |
|
|
Quote
“An atheist dogma….”
I will take it that there is a language barrier and you don’t understand what the word dogma entails. Every world view has a corresponding dogma associated with it (yes even the “open minded” agnostic and/or relativist). But I take it you are somewhat aware of that as you went on to state part of the relativist’s dogma in how they view others who believe in absolute truth…as you stated…”childishly simplistic world view”.
Quote
“Exactly, facts like "1984" being about more than just communism.”
Of course 1984 is more than about communism…it is about totalitarianism, human weakness, freedom, love, war, etc. The point we were debating at the time was if communism was the form of government being practiced by Oceania…which it was…but that is not the only thing the book was about by any means….much the same most books are about a plurality of concepts.
Quote
“Wolfman´s examples are as fitting as what comes out of a dog´s arse.”
First I think Wolfman has provided important contribution to this thread. But what you said is exactly the point…Wolfman pointed out what he saw as your narrow-mindedness (after you asked him to). You go to great exhaustion to label most of my views as narrow-minded. I could make a very long list of what I think are your narrow-minded views. In the end the term is useless thus I don’t often use it…narrow minded is a vague concept….we could all be accused of being narrow minded about the earth being flat or narrow minded about the existence of UFO’s. It just is a pretty useless description most of the time. As I went on to read PH’s post…it seems he has drawn the same conclusion.
Quote
“I know I said I was going, but well I couldn't leave without making one last post in this thread now could I?”
LOL here I was working through my separation anxiety of you leaving and then you pop back in Guess the draw is just too strong
Quote
“One persons principled stance is another's narrow minded attitude.”
Very well stated
Quote
“I see that after 29 pages of discussion, we have resorted to simple and childish arguments of name calling.”
Good point…you brought it up at the beginning of this very long thread and I have tried my utmost to restrain name calling. Now I do engage in labeling people’s opinions as ignorant, irrational, or illogical…which I do think can be warranted as they rely more upon objective criteria then just simple name calling. It is very hard to not engage in name calling…I want to ridicule people often for what IMO seems to be so stupid…but that really wouldn’t be very productive.
Quote
“[human shields ] Is this not using the same tactics?”
No it is entirely different…one if Saddam is placing military in military zones that is one thing...but to put them into cities that have no military standing is using human shields. Retreating to a place of civilian building for protection is a last resort..you never intentionally jeopardize civilians. And even so if you are retreating to civilian area you evacuate the civilians…that is a common tactic of all wars when the government actually gives a damn about their people.
Quote
“It could also be that the evidence and detail are not included in your post, or not in the report”
The basic reality is that I trust what Bush relays as I have found him to be continually trustworthy given as I have researched that what he has said in various matters is factully correct combined with his character has been proven to me. On the other hand it appears that you don’t trust him and maybe your own government…. so you will continue to question the reports and I will continue to trust the reports as valid.
Quote
“Whether one or the other is right, to fault the opposing side for their stance when the believe in it fully is pointless rhetoric gone mad.”
The point is valid to a degree…the problem is that when France and Germany (the Axis of Appeasers..hehe) move from a “we will not support this” to a “we will do everything to impede and stop this” they are drawing lines in the sand where they no longer are expressing their standards but enforcing their standards on other democratically elected governments. That is a dangerous line which can easily move from appeasers (where France and Germany were)…to obstructers (where they have recently moved to)…to collaborators of Saddam.
Quote
“name the ones intending to send more than a token force. In the 1st Gulf War most European nations claimed involvement”
What does that have to do with unilateral attack…you measure it solely on the troops committed? There are many ways to be involved and supportive of a regime change then solely through military troops. Most incursions of the last two decades have been primarily English and USA (even the Gulf War). Moreover if the UN completely supported an active military intervention…there still would be few troops from any of the other countries others…. then once again the USA and UK…so that really wouldn’t change anything in regards to the false unilateral charge.
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 12, 2003 06:57 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The point we were debating at the time was if communism was the form of government being practiced by Oceania…which it was
Sorry, according to all 20 out of 20 Orwell websites that I looked at: No. That´s your personal interpretation. Everyone else seems to understand the book differently. (Again, I don´t deny that it has some elements of communism).
Quote:
First I think Wolfman has provided important contribution to this thread.
If you call his constantly praising your postings and his not understanding what´s being talked about important contributions, then yes. I don´t remember even a single contribution from him that wasn´t either trivial, or cliche, or both. And can it become any more stupid than his CNN example?
Quote:
I could make a very long list of what I think are your narrow-minded views.
Uhm, you also call my views relativistic, which to my understanding is exactly the opposite (open-minded to an extend where everything vanishes into arbitrariness). Both together doesn´t make much sense to me.
Quote:
Every world view has a corresponding dogma associated with it.
Wrong. From your own world view, you draw conclusions about others. Of course not every opinion is dogmatic. Dogmatic views discourage doubt and criticism. Think of the Christian concept of faith. A scientific or agnostic view on the other hand encourages both, and is open to change, whenever parts of it are succesfully falsified. See, from your viewpoint, you can criticise me by calling me "relativistic" (I wouldn´t agree with you, but I would accept that as rational, as an arguable point). But both - well, it´s quite similar to the above case, seems just logically wrong.
____________
|
|
csarmi
Supreme Hero
gets back
|
|
posted February 12, 2003 10:53 AM |
|
Edited By: csarmi on 12 Feb 2003
|
Quote:
The point we were debating at the time was if communism was the form of government being practiced by Oceania
We got it! This is where the debate went wrong.
You talked about the government type, we talked about the ideas.
Not a surprise it did not work - even our points were different.
Quote:
Retreating to a place of civilian building for protection is a last resort.
It is a last resort. What should they do?
Listen.
Assume I call you names, you get pissed off.
I run to shelter - hide behind a car. You drop the stone, the window of the car brakes.
Now who is to blame?
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
posted February 12, 2003 11:46 PM |
|
|
What?
Quote:
If you call his constantly praising your postings and his not understanding what´s being talked about important contributions, then yes. I don´t remember even a single contribution from him that wasn´t either trivial, or cliche, or both. And can it become any more stupid than his CNN example?
What is that? You have only been posting in this thread since aboutpage 25 or so, I have since page 6, so I don't want to hear(read) things like that from you. I only agreed with dArGoN when he pointed out things in your argument that were wrong. And what is wrong with "my CNN example"?
dArGoN:
Quote:
First I think Wolfman has provided important contribution to this thread. But what you said is exactly the point…Wolfman pointed out what he saw as your narrow-mindedness (after you asked him to).
Well thanks, dArGoN, I didn't know you cared.
____________
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 12, 2003 11:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And what is wrong with "my CNN example"?
I already explained that. In your example, CNN completely agreed with my views.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted February 13, 2003 02:30 AM |
|
|
*sighs* You 3 just won't ever agree will you?
Firstly, thanks Wolfman, but I don't care much for QP's any more. It's hardly going to bother me to reduce my flood protect when I'm not posting much any more now is it?
Quote:
I want to ridicule people often for what IMO seems to be so stupid
The point I would believe here is that the opinion is only stupid in your eyes. What can be important to you and what are the core issues/motivations in a conflict are pointless or trivial to others because of the situation they find themselves in. This does not mean they should be ridiculed, but it should be more of a case of looking at it from their perspective and trying to understand why they might have those motives.
The whole human shields thing is very subjective and down to interpretation. Does Israel use this tactic when it defended it's cities and towns in it's wars or when it fought pitched battles in Lebanon's towns and cities? Did the allies use it at stalingrad? On the criteria mentioned they could both have the charge levelled on them also. As for trust, I usually take anything any person of power says with reluctance and look for evidence. This doesn't mean I'm suggesting Bush himself is some lying fool, there could be many reasons the report could be innacurate without Bush lying. It could be faulty or incomplete intelligence, the machinations of a person on his staff taking a report out of context and presenting it to Bush as an evil act (Bush may or may not be a genuine man, but he cannot do ALL his research personally after all). I think it's best that these things are investigated as much as possible before far reaching conclusions are drawn.
Quote:
we will do everything to impede and stop this
Interesting, I recall Bort stating a while back that anti-war countries should do all in their power to stop the war, this I think would be a peaceful attempt coming under what Bort was suggesting would it not?
And as for Enforcing, this is quite possibly a big mis-representation of the facts if I ever heard one. I cannot possibly believe that there is no way for America and other Hawk nations to support Turkey now that sections of Nato has vetoed the idea. Nato cannot stop entirely the Hawks from using their forces to send to Turkey, so why is it being represented as such? There are ways and means around the Franco/German stance, but these are sidestepped because it can make their overall stance seem less viable if they are declared or represented as traitors for that action.
Put it on the other side of the coin for a minute, and assume they had not used their veto. The accusations could then be levelled that they are backing off from their anti-war (note not anti regime change) stance and that they are Hypocrites for backing down when it mattered. If they truly put their principles forward as the way the world should act they should do their utmost to show those principles at all times.
The Hawks can get around the veto and could have done it quickly and without fuss. It was clear France and Germany would have done that, to force the issue by having the vote shows the wish to also force an rift in order to bring pressure on both nations.
As for Unilateral, I wasn't suggesting they weren't supporting or even that it wasn't unilateral, clearly the war is no longer just the yanks bashing on regardless. My point was more that I am heartily sick of it being the Anglo/American forces that face the brunt of the losses and costs of the war. Poland and Hungary have larger armed forces than the UK, where is their committment? Too often it's left to the same 2 nations to do the fighting and dying and it gets irritating to say the least.
Quote:
Well thanks, dArGoN, I didn't know you cared
So when's the Wedding? I've heard Iraq is good for a honeymoon btw! Pleanty of WMD to see for sights (allegedly anyway)
And then we return to this pointless Narrow-Mindedness (NM from now on, It's tiresome typing the full lot out all the time) Debate as to who is more NM than the other. Allow me to sum something up for you. Please note this is only my personal observation and therefore I am not submiting the following as gospel.
I think what defines the height of NM is not having an opinion and sticking to it, but the lack of ability to see that others have valid opinions and stances on an issue based on their experiences and interpretation of what they consider the important aspects of the issue. I'd like to use myself as an example here. I believe that on Iraq invasion is a final option and generally oppose it. Now I hold that opinion based on what I consider important and experience of what may and may not work. But to say that Dargon does not have a reason at all for advocating war when clearly there are some and also there is a logical reason for someone in his situation to view the whole issue in that way.
So the danger lies not in your own opinions, but in the denouncing of others opinions as completely or mostly irrelevant because you cannot see why they would hold them. I'm sure we've all done this at some time or another, whether intentionally or not, on a small issue or not. NM basically comes down to IMO more the inability to see things through the eyes of others and therefore understand their thoughts and actions because you have no wish to.
To extend this little thing, think on this. It is a short step from extreme NM (which some people accuse others of here) to persecution and hatred. I don't think anyone here is close to the kind of attitude that could be considered hatred in all seriousness (sure bort and dargon once combined denouncing me as a American Hater, but I doubt they were even close to meaning me harm by it). I doubt Dargon harbours secret thoughts about killing Lews or vice-versa. So clearly to me the charges of severe NM thrown around like confetti at a wedding here are incorrect. If people want to start accusing others of slight NM then fine, but I would think that we are all a little guilty of slight NM at some point here.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted February 13, 2003 03:06 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Interesting, I recall Bort stating a while back that anti-war countries should do all in their power to stop the war, this I think would be a peaceful attempt coming under what Bort was suggesting would it not?
Made the statement, stand by it, applaud Germany, France and Belgium.
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
