| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"JTEM" |
| Date: |
14 Apr 2005 04:58:34 AM |
| Object: |
Explanation - Invitation |
I'll offer an explanation here, and invite anyone to
comment/criticize my position.
And, oh, this is usenet. Don't take it serious. I know
that we could spend the next few days taking each
other apart, and I'd still be willing to sit down with
you over some drinks, as we dissed everyone else
on the group behind their backs. Just be honest and
have a real point to make, that's all I ask...
Anyhow, the perception is that I often involve myself
in political discussions, perhaps even off-topic
political discussions. I myself have denied that, insisting
that I rarely argue politics.
I'm right. That is to say, I'm being honest. I rarely argue
politics, and I say that as someone who truly would
enjoy arguing politics. Instead, what I do is argue facts,
or, just as accurately, "beliefs."
Dogma.
What follows is a clear cut, textbook example of what
I speak, together with a thorough explanation as to why
it qualifies as a religious argument -- based on faith --
and not a political argument.
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote
Since when does the UN actually give a ***** about
the welfare of this country or the planet? Does
Rwanda or Darfur ring any bells with you? How
about Oil-for-Palaces?
Now, reading this (and other comments), "Fred" leaves
use with the following impressions:
1) "Fred" doesn't like the U.N.
2) "Fred" is using examples such as the U.N.'s failure
to act in Rwanda to support his position that the U.N. is
a worthless organization.
3) "Fred" supports Bush's nomination of John Bolton
as Ambassador to the U.N.
Now if anyone feels that I'm unfairly characterizing "Fred's"
position here, please -- PLEASE! -- make your objections
known, together with an explanation.
Because, as things now stand, it appears that "Fred's"
conclusions are self-defeating, that his actions run
contrary to his own stated goals. It appears that "Fred's"
stated position is entirely faith based, entirely centered
on his belief of George Bush as our lord & savior.
Now why I say this is because of this one simple fact:
If you think the U.N. is bad, and the failure to do more
(or much of anything) in the case of Rwanda is why
they are bad, it is incumbent upon "Fred" to denounce
the nomination of John Bolton.
One of the direct questions asked of John Bolton today,
in his nomination hearing, was, given the benefit of
hindsight, what (if anything) he would have done
differently in the case of Rwanda.
John Bolton didn't just say that he wasn't sure that he'd
do anything differently, he said he wasn't sure if we
could have done anything differently.
This is with the benefit of hindsight. Not only did John
Bolton totally disagree with "Fred" on the idea that the
U.N. sucks because of things like Rwanda, but he man
isn't even sure if a different course of action existed
within the realm of possibilities.
Clearly, whatever "Fred" himself identifies as "Wrong"
about the U.N. is just as "Wrong" for John Bolton, yet
"Fred's" conclusion is exactly the opposite of this
inescapable reality.
"Fred" says the U.N. should have acted differently in
cases like Rwanda, and yet he supports the nomination
of a man who isn't willing to say that a different course
of action was even realistic. George Bush's choice is
support by "Fred" despite the fact that he is in total
conflict with "Fred's" stated priorities.
"Fred's" faith in his lord & savior, George Bush, has
trumped "Fred's" logic, even "Fred's" own best interest.
That's religion. But, heck, it certainly isn't politics.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Explanation - Invitation |
14 Apr 2005 06:29:05 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 00:58:34 -0400, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
I'll offer an explanation here, and invite anyone to
comment/criticize my position.
And, oh, this is usenet. Don't take it serious. I know
that we could spend the next few days taking each
other apart, and I'd still be willing to sit down with
you over some drinks, as we dissed everyone else
on the group behind their backs. Just be honest and
have a real point to make, that's all I ask...
Anyhow, the perception is that I often involve myself
in political discussions, perhaps even off-topic
political discussions. I myself have denied that, insisting
that I rarely argue politics.
I'm right. That is to say, I'm being honest. I rarely argue
politics, and I say that as someone who truly would
enjoy arguing politics. Instead, what I do is argue facts,
or, just as accurately, "beliefs."
You argue what you honestly *believe* to be facts.
You have *faith* in your sources of information and argue based on
that faith.
And of course you believe that you are right just as most people who
state a thing as being fact believe it to be so.
Dogma.
Yes.
And you are clearly not immune.
What follows is a clear cut, textbook example of what
I speak, together with a thorough explanation as to why
it qualifies as a religious argument -- based on faith --
and not a political argument.
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote
Since when does the UN actually give a ***** about
the welfare of this country or the planet? Does
Rwanda or Darfur ring any bells with you? How
about Oil-for-Palaces?
Now, reading this (and other comments), "Fred" leaves
use with the following impressions:
1) "Fred" doesn't like the U.N.
A definite sign of a man who understands the damage they do.
It's a matter of compassion for our fellow man.
They are stupid, weak and cowardly.
And people die because of it.
2) "Fred" is using examples such as the U.N.'s failure
to act in Rwanda to support his position that the U.N. is
a worthless organization.
He is correct.
However they are worse than worthless in that they encourage the abuse
of defenseless human beings.
Who with any sense of justice would not be troubled by the failure in
Rwanda?
3) "Fred" supports Bush's nomination of John Bolton
as Ambassador to the U.N.
Now if anyone feels that I'm unfairly characterizing "Fred's"
position here, please -- PLEASE! -- make your objections
known, together with an explanation.
Because, as things now stand, it appears that "Fred's"
conclusions are self-defeating, that his actions run
contrary to his own stated goals. It appears that "Fred's"
stated position is entirely faith based, entirely centered
on his belief of George Bush as our lord & savior.
He has never claimed such a thing.
Now why I say this is because of this one simple fact:
If you think the U.N. is bad, and the failure to do more
(or much of anything) in the case of Rwanda is why
they are bad, it is incumbent upon "Fred" to denounce
the nomination of John Bolton.
One of the direct questions asked of John Bolton today,
in his nomination hearing, was, given the benefit of
hindsight, what (if anything) he would have done
differently in the case of Rwanda.
John Bolton didn't just say that he wasn't sure that he'd
do anything differently, he said he wasn't sure if we
could have done anything differently.
Under the administration that was in power at the time?
He's correct.
Even Clinton had the unmitigated gall to apoligize for the cowardly
failure of his administration to do something when we should have.
800,000 deaths later.
He's really sorry in other words but gosh...what's a guy to do?
He was just the leader of the free world and the "most powerful man on
earth."
This is with the benefit of hindsight. Not only did John
Bolton totally disagree with "Fred" on the idea that the
U.N. sucks because of things like Rwanda, but the man
isn't even sure if a different course of action existed
within the realm of possibilities.
Clearly, whatever "Fred" himself identifies as "Wrong"
about the U.N. is just as "Wrong" for John Bolton, yet
"Fred's" conclusion is exactly the opposite of this
inescapable reality.
"Fred" says the U.N. should have acted differently in
cases like Rwanda, and yet he supports the nomination
of a man who isn't willing to say that a different course
of action was even realistic. George Bush's choice is
support by "Fred" despite the fact that he is in total
conflict with "Fred's" stated priorities.
If he indeed meant that no other course was possible if another
administration had been in power then I would rather tell him to go
straight to hell with his chickenshit attitude.
"Fred's" faith in his lord & savior, George Bush, has
trumped "Fred's" logic, even "Fred's" own best interest.
That's religion. But, heck, it certainly isn't politics.
Your religion and belief in your political saviors is just as strong
as that of anybody else.
But just like the religionist you close your eyes and ears to any form
of blasphemous opinion.
You are no more honest nor dishonest than the rest.
And just as absolutely convinced that you are absolutely right.
Dogma.
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Explanation - Invitation |
14 Apr 2005 07:34:03 AM |
|
|
<atheist@home.com> wrote
You argue what you honestly *believe* to be facts.
No.
And I don't just say that -- I never stopped there -- I
offered objective support for my statements.
You have *faith* in your sources of information
I often employ information from the other side.
Heck, many times I've even used the "Cites" offered
by the people who were arguing against me to
establish the facts.
You want examples?
"Fred" once offered a cite pretending that it "Proved"
the stories about unguarded, looted Iraqi museums
were only so much liberal media hype. His source,
his cite, actually proved that he was wrong. The cite
acknowledged that the museums were left unguarded,
were looted & vandalized. What it did say was that,
at that point in time, they believed that a lot of the
missing pieces (missing after the museums were
ravaged) might have been carried away to safety
before the war.
As I stated many times, you can actually use cites
that disagree with your position to support your
position. You can even use unrelated cites.
I have done both.
Even if a cite's conclusion is in conflict with you,
it's supporting evidence can be used to confirm a
key point. Using that point which it itself establishes,
you can then establish further facts which disproves
it's conclusions.
Who with any sense of justice would not be
troubled by the failure in Rwanda?
Bush, for one. The man Bush would have serve as
U.N. abassador -- and is supported by "Fred" --
is another.
So, in that sense, I guess even "Fred" is not troubled
by the failure in Rwanda, as he certainly is vocal
in his support of a man who would not do anything
the least bit differently.
Because, as things now stand, it appears that "Fred's"
conclusions are self-defeating, that his actions run
contrary to his own stated goals. It appears that "Fred's"
stated position is entirely faith based, entirely centered
on his belief of George Bush as our lord & savior.
He has never claimed such a thing.
What "Fred" claims is irrelevant.
The fact remains that "Fred" is supporting a course of
action that results in achieving the complete opposite
of his own stated priorities. What's more, "Fred's"
analytical discount here appears t be the result of his
faith is George Dubya Bush.
John Bolton didn't just say that he wasn't sure that he'd
do anything differently, he said he wasn't sure if we
could have done anything differently.
Under the administration that was in power at the time?
That's not what he said. Look at you. You have to invent
an argument he never made just to defend him. The real
man, his real statements -- even in your eyes -- are so
indefensable that you dare not try.
He's correct.
Imaginary people are correct? Because, here on our
planet the man never made any such claim as you
attribute to him. According to him, all it was logistical
problem, not a political problem.
*That* is what he stated, and not your fantasy.
If he indeed meant that no other course was possible
if another administration had been in power then I
would rather tell him to go straight to hell with his
chickenshit attitude.
What he said was that it was a matter of logistics.
There. You have your answer. The god-approved
nominee invented no claims regarding Clinton.
Your religion and belief in your political saviors
is just as strong as that of anybody else.
I see your statements, but there is no argument.
You offer only pronouncements.
Go on. Construct a case as I have.
Can you?
If you can't -- if you don't -- are you adult enough &
honest enough to admit your slander?
I will get an answer. The only question that remains
is if you actively give me one, or passively
acknowledge it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Explanation - Invitation |
14 Apr 2005 11:50:19 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote
Even if a cite's conclusion is in conflict with you,
it's supporting evidence can be used to confirm a
key point. Using that point which it itself establishes,
you can then establish further facts which disproves
it's conclusions.
I'm not sure if that sounds right.
But let's say that a lunatic right-wing web site makes
the argument that if [A] == [B] then the answer has to
be [C].
Now, using the right-wing's own argument, prove
that [A] does not equal [B].
Or show the flaws in the evidence/argument they
use to support the idea that [A] is somehow equal
to [B].
Even better: Pull up other lunatic right-wing
"cites" that pronounce [A] equal to [X].
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Explanation - Invitation |
16 Apr 2005 02:38:12 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 07:50:19 -0400, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote
Even if a cite's conclusion is in conflict with you,
it's supporting evidence can be used to confirm a
key point. Using that point which it itself establishes,
you can then establish further facts which disproves
it's conclusions.
I'm not sure if that sounds right.
But let's say that a lunatic right-wing web site makes
the argument that if [A] == [B] then the answer has to
be [C].
Or it could be a lunatic left wing site that says if A = B the answer
has to be that math is a social construct of the rightwing patriarchy
whose sole objective is to create a white male hegemony designed to
deny any participatory and functional contribution to the field of
math by anyone who isn't white or male and who doesn't agree with the
sexist, racist and homophobic concept that numbers have meaning in any
sense other than the political.
Now, using the right-wing's own argument, prove
that [A] does not equal [B].
Or show the flaws in the evidence/argument they
use to support the idea that [A] is somehow equal
to [B].
Even better: Pull up other lunatic right-wing
"cites" that pronounce [A] equal to [X].
Or pull up lunatic left wing cites that claim four plus four equals
five, white is black and there is no truth that is absolute.
Actually I did understand what you were saying.
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Explanation - Invitation |
16 Apr 2005 07:54:20 PM |
|
|
<atheist@home.com> wrote
Or it could be a lunatic left wing site that says if A = B
the answer has to be that math is a social construct of
the rightwing patriarchy
Really? So please cite for us a couple of real world
examples that would be analogous to your claim.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Explanation - Invitation |
17 Apr 2005 05:07:46 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 15:54:20 -0400, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
<atheist@home.com> wrote
Or it could be a lunatic left wing site that says if A = B
the answer has to be that math is a social construct of
the rightwing patriarchy
Really? So please cite for us a couple of real world
examples that would be analogous to your claim.
It was a joke.
However there are left wing loonies out there and I was poking fun at
their pseudo-intellectual idiocy.
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Explanation - Invitation |
18 Apr 2005 03:33:04 AM |
|
|
<atheist@home.com> wrote
It was a joke.
However there are left wing loonies out there
and I was poking fun at their pseudo-intellectual
idiocy.
The major difference being that the right-wing loonies
are Republicans. They are included within, and
represented by, he MAJORITY party.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Explanation - Invitation |
15 Apr 2005 10:23:38 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 03:34:03 -0400, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
<atheist@home.com> wrote
You argue what you honestly *believe* to be facts.
No.
And I don't just say that -- I never stopped there -- I
offered objective support for my statements.
I'm not questioning your attempt to be objective.
Just the fact that what we often believe to be objective evidence is
not, or that the "evidence" is incorrect for a number of reasons.
You have *faith* in your sources of information
I often employ information from the other side.
It is still information and in order to employ it pro or con we still
have to rely a bit on faith that it is true or false.
The fact tha Einstein was a brilliant physicist was no guarantee that
he was equally brilliant in his views regarding other matters yet many
people took whatever he had to say on any subject at face value and
spread his message in support of their opinions.
We rely on reporters and political writers who very often have their
on agendas which can cloud their views.
Those on the left have more faith in writers who support their own
leftest view of the world and the same holds true for those on the
right.
True objectivity is a hard row to *****.
Heck, many times I've even used the "Cites" offered
by the people who were arguing against me to
establish the facts.
You want examples?
"Fred" once offered a cite pretending that it "Proved"
the stories about unguarded, looted Iraqi museums
were only so much liberal media hype. His source,
his cite, actually proved that he was wrong. The cite
acknowledged that the museums were left unguarded,
were looted & vandalized. What it did say was that,
at that point in time, they believed that a lot of the
missing pieces (missing after the museums were
ravaged) might have been carried away to safety
before the war.
One sentence added or one missing in a report can change the character
of the information a great deal.
Sometimes we also get the gist of a report and miss an important
element which can affect our opinion, especially if we have already
read other opinions regarding a certain subject.
As I stated many times, you can actually use cites
that disagree with your position to support your
position. You can even use unrelated cites.
I have done both.
Even if a cite's conclusion is in conflict with you,
it's supporting evidence can be used to confirm a
key point. Using that point which it itself establishes,
you can then establish further facts which disproves
it's conclusions.
Who with any sense of justice would not be
troubled by the failure in Rwanda?
Bush, for one. The man Bush would have serve as
U.N. ambassador -- and is supported by "Fred" --
is another.
So, in that sense, I guess even "Fred" is not troubled
by the failure in Rwanda, as he certainly is vocal
in his support of a man who would not do anything
the least bit differently.
He just has a different view of the matter.
That's not an indication that he is not troubled by the obscenity and
the fact theat he addresses it is an indication that he probably is.
Because, as things now stand, it appears that "Fred's"
conclusions are self-defeating, that his actions run
contrary to his own stated goals. It appears that "Fred's"
stated position is entirely faith based, entirely centered
on his belief of George Bush as our lord & savior.
He has never claimed such a thing.
What "Fred" claims is irrelevant.
How so?
A discussion or debate is just an exchange of ideas and opinions.
It's information that may or may not be correct.
We may not cite all the information that leads us to certain
conclusions but we seldom draw from a single source or opinion to
formulate our own.
The fact remains that "Fred" is supporting a course of
action that results in achieving the complete opposite
of his own stated priorities. What's more, "Fred's"
analytical discount here appears t be the result of his
faith is George Dubya Bush.
John Bolton didn't just say that he wasn't sure that he'd
do anything differently, he said he wasn't sure if we
could have done anything differently.
Under the administration that was in power at the time?
That's not what he said. Look at you. You have to invent
an argument he never made just to defend him. The real
man, his real statements -- even in your eyes -- are so
indefensable that you dare not try.
Did you see the question mark?
I don't know anything about the man, I haven't read his statements and
don't know the context.
If he meant because of Clinton's policies then..
He's correct.
Imaginary people are correct? Because, here on our
planet the man never made any such claim as you
attribute to him. According to him, all it was logistical
problem, not a political problem.
I didn't accuse him of makng such a claim.
I simply didn't know what he was referring to when he made the
statement.
But there's that missing sentence, the missing information.
"According to him, it was a logistical problem, not a political
problem."
That is precise to a degree and unambiguous as opposed to:
"John Bolton didn't just say that he wasn't sure that he'd do anything
differently, he said he wasn't sure if we could have done anything
differently."
But it was a political problem.
*That* is what he stated, and not your fantasy.
I don't like fantasy as a rule and certainly don't purposely engage in
it when discussing real life situations.
It's pointless except for those with an axe to grind and can in fact
be very destructive.
If he indeed meant that no other course was possible
if another administration had been in power then I
would rather tell him to go straight to hell with his
chickenshit attitude.
What he said was that it was a matter of logistics.
That can be a problem when dealing with the U.N.
Unfortunetly it gets people killed.
There is no excuse for what the world allowed to happen in Rwanda.
There. You have your answer. The god-approved
nominee invented no claims regarding Clinton.
I didn't say that he did.
Just suggested the possibility given the information.
It also does no good to claim that Clinton couldn't have done
something.
The fact that he is a Democrat doesn't make him holy and infallible.
Had he and his team been stronger it would quite likely have made a
difference.
It's disgusting that not only will the world still stand by and let
such things happen but that anybody would try to excuse the lack of
action, or that the man who could have worked to stop it would think
he should be forgiven for his failure because he apoligized for his
"boo boo."
<I'm not accusing you but there have been many>
Your religion and belief in your political saviors
is just as strong as that of anybody else.
I see your statements, but there is no argument.
You offer only pronouncements.
You are human and just as subject to human failure, emotions and
distortions as everybody else.
Go on. Construct a case as I have.
Can you?
If you can't -- if you don't -- are you adult enough &
honest enough to admit your slander?
I will get an answer. The only question that remains
is if you actively give me one, or passively
acknowledge it.
Lol!
I am perfect in my reasoning and all my judgements.
I cannot be fooled and everything I believe to be true *is* true
because I deem it to be so.
The very idea...that anyone would so much as suggest that I might be
wrong about anything.
I simply don't know what to make of it.
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Explanation - Invitation |
16 Apr 2005 07:48:43 PM |
|
|
<atheist@home.com> wrote
I'm not questioning your attempt to be objective.
Thank you, I guess.
Just the fact that what we often believe to be objective
evidence is not, or that the "evidence" is incorrect for
a number of reasons.
In theory, nothing is absolutely-positively known as
a concrete fact.
Beyond that sense though, there is plenty that we can
& should accept.
I often employ information from the other side.
It is still information and in order to employ it pro
or con we still have to rely a bit on faith that it is
true or false.
Not necessarily.
Evidence supports a conclusion, or at least that's the
way it's supposed to work. The very example I
raised here -- "Fred" and his endorsement of Bolton --
is a classic case where even if his evidence is accepted
as true (The U.N. sucks because of things like Rwanda),
his conclusion (Bolton is a good choice) is still very
wrong.
But that wasn't the point I was making. My point was
that my conflict with "Fred" stems from his religious
belief in the lunatic right & their god, George Bush.
If you accept the evidence as true, my position is
supported by "Fred's" wildly contradictory stance,
where the U.N. sucks because of instances like
Rwanda & he supports a man that totally disagrees
with him.
If you don't accept the evidence as true, not only are
you saying that "Fred" has no argument, no basis,
but it still leaves us with the fact that IS "Fred's"
position. "Fred's" contradiction remains, whether
the supporting evidence is true or not.
What "Fred" said doesn't have to be a fact. The point
is, it is how argument.
The fact tha Einstein was a brilliant physicist was
no guarantee that he was equally brilliant in his
views regarding other matters yet many people
took whatever he had to say on any subject at face
value and spread his message in support of their
opinions.
I agree. Just as many people who are successful
in one field will often times project their competence
onto other fields.
This is even without getting into issues such as how
"Success" is defined.
We rely on reporters and political writers who very
often have their on agendas which can cloud their
views.
No "we" don't. You do.
Those on the left have more faith in writers who
support their own leftest view of the world and
the same holds true for those on the right.
Your mistake here is in assuming that everyone is
exactly like you.
I have checked sources. I have verified information.
It's one of the ways I converted a Bush supporter,
sympathetic to the lunatic right, into an educated
voter.
She kept insisting that there just HAD TO be something
behind all the smears the lunatic right were throwing
against Clinton. I kept insisting that there wasn't. She
demanded an explanation but I couldn't provide one
without specifics.
Finally, she saved one of her lunatic right-wing
e-mails just for me. It concerned Hillary and the
Gold Star mothers. Anyhow, I grabbed her laptop,
found the Gold Star Mothers web site on google,
and showed her THEIR statement denouncing the
smear as false.
True objectivity is a hard row to *****.
The lunatic right-wing is not just based on this, but
it's based on the idea that they have to go out of
their way to overcompensate for (what they hope
is) less than perfect objectivity that conflicts with
them.
One sentence added or one missing in a report can
change the character of the information a great deal.
Such as?
So, in that sense, I guess even "Fred" is not troubled
by the failure in Rwanda, as he certainly is vocal
in his support of a man who would not do anything
the least bit differently.
He just has a different view of the matter.
No he doesn't. Not according to "Fred." He has a
different CONCLUSION.
He says "This sucks. Let's get a man in there who will
keep things exactly as they are."
I says "This sucks. Let's get someone who would do
things differently."
What "Fred" claims is irrelevant.
How so?
Because the whole point was in demonstrating the
disconnect between his own stated priorities and
his chosen course of action.
A discussion or debate is just an exchange of
ideas and opinions.
Not necessarily. Not entirely.
It's information that may or may not be correct.
No. It's statements. It's conclusions.
We may not cite all the information that leads
us to certain conclusions but we seldom draw
from a single source or opinion to formulate our
own.
Maybe, but it's safe for us to assume that the
so-called "information" cited is relevant.
Under the administration that was in power at the time?
That's not what he said. Look at you. You have to invent
an argument he never made just to defend him. The real
man, his real statements -- even in your eyes -- are so
indefensible that you dare not try.
Did you see the question mark?
Yes. But I also saw you answer your own question.
If he meant because of Clinton's policies then..
He meant -- and stated -- that it was because of
logistics.
Imaginary people are correct? Because, here on our
planet the man never made any such claim as you
attribute to him. According to him, all it was logistical
problem, not a political problem.
I didn't accuse him of makng such a claim.
You asked if he did, then continued on as if he did.
That is precise to a degree and unambiguous as
opposed to: "John Bolton didn't just say that he
wasn't sure that he'd do anything differently, he
said he wasn't sure if we could have done anything
differently."
But it was a political problem.
Only it wasn't. He said it was a logistical problem.
I don't like fantasy as a rule and certainly don't
purposely engage in it when discussing real life
situations.
We weren't. The man was handed a hypothetical.
He was asked, given what we know now, what he
would do differently.
What he said was that it was a matter of logistics.
That can be a problem when dealing with the U.N.
Explain. Please give examples.
It's disgusting that not only will the world
still stand by and let such things happen but
that anybody would try to excuse the lack of
action,
Exactly the opposite. People will viciously assault
any action.
Example: Clinton in Kosovo.
Your religion and belief in your political saviors
is just as strong as that of anybody else.
I see your statements, but there is no argument.
Still no argument.
You offer only pronouncements.
Still only pronouncements.
You are human and just as subject to human failure,
emotions and distortions as everybody else.
Great. But that's not the topic of conversation here.
Go on. Construct a case as I have.
Still no case.
If you can't -- if you don't -- are you adult enough &
honest enough to admit your slander?
Looks like you aren't.
I will get an answer. The only question that remains
is if you actively give me one, or passively
acknowledge it.
Looks to be the latter.
I am perfect in my reasoning and all my judgements.
Just a pronouncement.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Explanation - Invitation |
18 Apr 2005 08:27:01 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 15:48:43 -0400, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
<atheist@home.com> wrote
<snip>
The lunatic right-wing is not just based on this, but
it's based on the idea that they have to go out of
their way to overcompensate for (what they hope
is) less than perfect objectivity that conflicts with
them.
This is a very interesting paragraph.
Had you left out the (what they hope is) or said (What they believe to
be) I might have been more clear on your meaning.
Could you expound on it please?
atheist@home#1554
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Explanation - Invitation |
18 Apr 2005 01:10:52 PM |
|
|
<atheist@home.com> wrote
The lunatic right-wing is not just based on this, but
it's based on the idea that they have to go out of
their way to overcompensate for (what they hope
is) less than perfect objectivity that conflicts with
them.
This is a very interesting paragraph.
Had you left out the (what they hope is) or said (What they
believe to be) I might have been more clear on your meaning.
Less clear.
According to the lunatic right (and even you), there was
no room for any honest policy disputes with the Reagan
administration. All attacks on Reagan, his policies & the
results of those policies amounted to nothing more than
partisan smears, no different than the constant right-wing
slandering of Bill Clinton.
This is a fantasy.
Could you expound on it please?
Well, take yourself for example.
According to you, there were no genuine disputes
over Reagan's policies toward AIDS. It all amounted
to the Democratic smear machine pretending that
Ronald Reagan invented AIDS, just because Reagan
refused to give their special interest groups more
money than could be justified.
Or some such nonsense.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Explanation - Invitation |
20 Apr 2005 05:18:26 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 09:10:52 -0400, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
<atheist@home.com> wrote
The lunatic right-wing is not just based on this, but
it's based on the idea that they have to go out of
their way to overcompensate for (what they hope
is) less than perfect objectivity that conflicts with
them.
This is a very interesting paragraph.
Had you left out the (what they hope is) or said (What they
believe to be) I might have been more clear on your meaning.
Less clear.
According to the lunatic right (and even you), there was
no room for any honest policy disputes with the Reagan
administration. All attacks on Reagan, his policies & the
results of those policies amounted to nothing more than
partisan smears, no different than the constant right-wing
slandering of Bill Clinton.
This is a fantasy.
Could you expound on it please?
Well, take yourself for example.
According to you, there were no genuine disputes
over Reagan's policies toward AIDS. It all amounted
to the Democratic smear machine pretending that
Ronald Reagan invented AIDS, just because Reagan
refused to give their special interest groups more
money than could be justified.
Or some such nonsense.
How did you get the idea that I even suggested such a thing?
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Explanation - Invitation |
18 Apr 2005 07:51:51 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 15:48:43 -0400, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
<atheist@home.com> wrote
I'm not questioning your attempt to be objective.
Thank you, I guess.
Just the fact that what we often believe to be objective
evidence is not, or that the "evidence" is incorrect for
a number of reasons.
In theory, nothing is absolutely-positively known as
a concrete fact.
Two apples plus two apples equals four apples is concrete fact.
But that's math.
On the other hand if one of the apples has a very large worm eating
through the middle it doesn't quite equal the other three in a sense
does it?
Beyond that sense though, there is plenty that we can
& should accept.
Why?
If it has to do with political science, religion, psychology,
sociology, or any other of the "soft sciences" then it's nothing more
than "educated" opinion based on "educated" opinion and subject to
distortion based on emotion and cultural influences.
We believe there is sound, color and taste in the world but it isn't
so.
Those things do not exist apart from us yet we insist that they do.
Our very senses lie to us and our emotions for various reasons lie to
us even more.
I often employ information from the other side.
It is still information and in order to employ it pro
or con we still have to rely a bit on faith that it is
true or false.
Not necessarily.
Evidence supports a conclusion, or at least that's the
way it's supposed to work. The very example I
raised here -- "Fred" and his endorsement of Bolton --
is a classic case where even if his evidence is accepted
as true (The U.N. sucks because of things like Rwanda),
his conclusion (Bolton is a good choice) is still very
wrong.
Understood.
But that wasn't the point I was making. My point was
that my conflict with "Fred" stems from his religious
belief in the lunatic right & their god, George Bush.
Again, the lunatic left has their own gods and godesses.
I support and respect Bush for several reasons.
His stance on terrorrism and pre-emptive strikes being two.
Funny thing is that he is getting wailed by many conservatives because
they see him doing some very liberal things.
They detest his heartfelt stance on illegal aliens for instance.
His position imo isn't just humane, it's perfectly rational.
Bush is in my opinion liberal in some things and conservative in
others.
And there is little middle ground for him on certain issues but so
many with the either or position on politics demand that he be one or
the other and he refuses to do so.
Hillary Clinton is beginning to lean a bit to the right for political
convenience and that of course is what a self serving politician with
a passionate ambition for unbridled power would do.
And people on the left worship her religiously.
If you accept the evidence as true, my position is
supported by "Fred's" wildly contradictory stance,
where the U.N. sucks because of instances like
Rwanda & he supports a man that totally disagrees
with him.
I haven't studied it but I disagree with the opinion that we couldn't
have done anything regarding Rwanda.
Clinton used his position as president to discourage it and that's
just a sad fact.
No, it's an obscenity actually.
<snip>
The fact tha Einstein was a brilliant physicist was
no guarantee that he was equally brilliant in his
views regarding other matters yet many people
took whatever he had to say on any subject at face
value and spread his message in support of their
opinions.
I agree. Just as many people who are successful
in one field will often times project their competence
onto other fields.
And the response is interesting imo.
I'm rather fascinated by it.
This is even without getting into issues such as how
"Success" is defined.
Which is an excellent question.
We rely on reporters and political writers who very
often have their on agendas which can cloud their
views.
No "we" don't. You do.
Where do you get your information then?
If you are not in a room with a man when he express an opinion don't
you have to rely on the person who relays the information about what
he said and what it meant?
Carl Marx, toward the end of his life said that he was not a Marxist.
What do you think of that?
<Kindly don't snip the question; there is a point to be made here>
Abraham Lincoln represented a man who filed suit to have a slave
returned to him and won.
What do you think that says about Lincoln's supposed concern about the
institution of slavery?
<Don't snip please..answer>
Those on the left have more faith in writers who
support their own leftest view of the world and
the same holds true for those on the right.
Your mistake here is in assuming that everyone is
exactly like you.
No, just that everyone is just like everyone always has been.
You are no different.
You just think you are.
I have checked sources. I have verified information.
How?
Have you done personal interviews with those involved?
Or do you rely on things written and said regarding certain issues?
It's one of the ways I converted a Bush supporter,
sympathetic to the lunatic right, into an educated
voter.
Lol!
"Educated."
Just look at yourself.
All those loaded words and terms.
Political snippets.
He who controls the language controls the mind.
She kept insisting that there just HAD TO be something
behind all the smears the lunatic right were throwing
against Clinton. I kept insisting that there wasn't. She
demanded an explanation but I couldn't provide one
without specifics.
Finally, she saved one of her lunatic right-wing
e-mails just for me. It concerned Hillary and the
Gold Star mothers. Anyhow, I grabbed her laptop,
found the Gold Star Mothers web site on google,
and showed her THEIR statement denouncing the
smear as false.
That was a good thing.
Well done.
The truth.
The only damn thing that should matter to anyone.
But that was just one issue.
Aren't there others?
She's a fool if that was all it took to change her "mind."
I don't listen to the "rightwing" crap myself.
Any more than I listen to the "leftwing" trash.
I don't have time for it.
True objectivity is a hard row to *****.
The lunatic right-wing is not just based on this, but
it's based on the idea that they have to go out of
their way to overcompensate for (what they hope
is) less than perfect objectivity that conflicts with
them.
Oh come on!
The left is no different.
It's all a damned political scam.
It's the left that demands re-education camps in the form of
sensitivity training and cultural diversity classes to get our minds
right.
It's the left that demands that we dare not speak the thing that
should not be spoken or think the thing that should not be thought.
It's the left that seeks legislation to control our hearts and minds.
And it's the right that demands that the pledge should be required in
the public schools, that the Ten Commandments should be posted and
that it should be a federal offense to burn in protest the very symbol
of the right to protest.
It's the right that seeks legislation to control our hearts and minds.
And ***** the individual who refuses to follow the herd and sees the
bastards on both sides for what they are.
And we had damn well better align ourselves with one side or the other
if we know what's good for us.
There are ways to deal with us if we don't.
There's Hell to think about, excommunication, expulsion from the party
and angry soldiers for the cause to berate us or maybe even kill us
for our stupidity or blasphemy.
But then there is the hardcore study of history, the obsessive study
that tells us not only who we are but who *they* are which is the only
thing that can save us in the long run.
But history is such a boring subject isn't it?
I mean what the hell can anything that happened five hundred years ago
have to do with anything that is going on now eh?
One sentence added or one missing in a report can
change the character of the information a great deal.
Such as?
What you did at the end of this post is a pretty good example.
So, in that sense, I guess even "Fred" is not troubled
by the failure in Rwanda, as he certainly is vocal
in his support of a man who would not do anything
the least bit differently.
He just has a different view of the matter.
No he doesn't. Not according to "Fred." He has a
different CONCLUSION.
Which he reached as a result of a different view of the matter.
He says "This sucks. Let's get a man in there who will
keep things exactly as they are."
I says "This sucks. Let's get someone who would do
things differently."
What "Fred" claims is irrelevant.
How so?
Because the whole point was in demonstrating the
disconnect between his own stated priorities and
his chosen course of action.
A discussion or debate is just an exchange of
ideas and opinions.
Not necessarily. Not entirely.
That's very confusing.
It's information that may or may not be correct.
No. It's statements. It's conclusions.
It's statements expressing different perspectives on a given subject.
We may not cite all the information that leads
us to certain conclusions but we seldom draw
from a single source or opinion to formulate our
own.
Maybe, but it's safe for us to assume that the
so-called "information" cited is relevant.
How is that safe?
Besides, what Fred thinks is relevant you may not believe to be.
We can't conceivably cite every source that leads us to certain
conclusions.
There is a lifetime of information to draw from.
How could we possibly list it all?
<snip>
What he said was that it was a matter of logistics.
That can be a problem when dealing with the U.N.
Explain. Please give examples.
Somalia comes to mind.
Cambodia.
How many examples do you need?
I will do my best to provide them.
It's disgusting that not only will the world
still stand by and let such things happen but
that anybody would try to excuse the lack of
action,
Exactly the opposite. People will viciously assault
any action.
Example: Clinton in Kosovo.
He did very good there.
Damned good.
Who complained?
***** on them.
It was the right thing to do.
But Clinton had a poll taken.
People were on his side.
He wanted to move but was afraid of the political fallout.
And how were we threatened by what was going on in Kosovo?
How was the action justified as far as America's interests?
Don't misunderstand me.
I'm proud of what he did there.
Very proud.
But how was that different than Iraq?
Pre-emptive strike?
Hardly.
They were no threat to us whatsoever.
<snip>
Looks to be the latter.
Just isn't worth the effort.
I am perfect in my reasoning and all my judgements.
You see..you snipped the part that indicated the statement was a joke.
Very dishonest.
And not at all clever.
You have a bad habit of doing that.
That's what partisan politics is all about.
Distorting a thing by eliminating relevant information in order to
present a statement out of context.
To make it look as though the meaning was something other than
what it was.
It's a dishonest way to deal with an honest disagreement.
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Explanation - Invitation |
18 Apr 2005 01:05:41 PM |
|
|
<atheist@home.com> wrote
<Kindly don't snip the question; there is a point to be made here>
Abraham Lincoln represented a man who filed suit to have
a slave returned to him and won.
Interesting.
What do you think that says about Lincoln's supposed
concern about the institution of slavery?
<Don't snip please..answer>
Harry Truman was a racist. Period. He also did more for
racial equality than any President, until he was finally
topped by LBJ. It wasn't all that popular for either one
(neither got elected to their own second term), and both
understaood that it wouldn't be popular.
I guess that makes Truman a hypocrite.
Now I don't know if your story about Lincoln is true.
As of late, there's been quite a bit of "Historical
Revisionism" centered on Lincoln. But I do know that
we can't accuse Lincoln of hypocrisy.
Lincoln for the first to say that it wasn't about slavery
for him. Lincoln was the first to admit that he wouldn't
have freed any slaves -- or would have freed only a
few -- if that's what would have ended the war.
For Lincoln, it was all political.
So, I can't fault Lincoln for having the good sense to
see the bleeding obvious, to recognize the fact that
their is no appeasing the violent opposition. People
who live in black & white worlds can't compromise.
They can't. Because anything that's not white is
black -- by it's very definition -- and they are never
going to accept black.
That's the difference between Lincoln & people like
Bush.
If you want real hypocrisy though, unforgivable
hypocrisy, look to the "Confederacy."
There was certainly no shortage of people -- Robert
E. Lee chief amongst them -- who began the was
saying that they didn't believe in the Confederacy.
They knowingly & willingly killed by the thousands
though, despite their lack of belief.
That's a weak man. That's a poor example of a human
being.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Explanation - Invitation |
18 Apr 2005 09:03:58 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 09:05:41 -0400, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
<atheist@home.com> wrote
<Kindly don't snip the question; there is a point to be made here>
You snipped the statement about Karl Marx.
Abraham Lincoln represented a man who filed suit to have
a slave returned to him and won.
Interesting.
The object of both statements was to make a point about how certain
things can be stated and that by leaving out information a dishonest
political point can be made.
In the case of Marx for instance what he said was that if his
son-in-law's socialist opinions were Marxism then he himself was not a
Marxist.
In the case of Lincoln he was applying the law.
In the first, by leaving out certain portions of the text a case could
be made, however dishonestly that even Marx had given up on his ideas
and in the case of Lincoln a case could be made that he was a
hypocrite regarding his views on slavery.
<Actually he *was* a hypocrite but not in his views about slavery>
What do you think that says about Lincoln's supposed
concern about the institution of slavery?
<Don't snip please..answer>
Harry Truman was a racist. Period. He also did more for
racial equality than any President, until he was finally
topped by LBJ. It wasn't all that popular for either one
(neither got elected to their own second term), and both
understaood that it wouldn't be popular.
I guess that makes Truman a hypocrite.
Not at all.
Now I don't know if your story about Lincoln is true.
As of late, there's been quite a bit of "Historical
Revisionism" centered on Lincoln. But I do know that
we can't accuse Lincoln of hypocrisy.
Sure we can, but again not in the case of his feelings on slavery.
<I'm not getting into another discussion about Lincoln or the war>
<snip>
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Explanation - Invitation |
18 Apr 2005 11:51:36 PM |
|
|
<atheist@home.com> wrote
You snipped the statement about Karl Marx.
I responded in the long-winded article.
Abraham Lincoln represented a man who filed suit to have
a slave returned to him and won.
Interesting.
The object of both statements was to make a point about how
certain things can be stated and that by leaving out information
a dishonest political point can be made.
Hmmm...
In the case of Marx for instance what he said was that if his
son-in-law's socialist opinions were Marxism then he himself
was not a Marxist.
That's not "Leaving out," that's lying.
What you stated was that Karl Marx said that he wasn't a
Marxist.
In the case of Lincoln he was applying the law.
In the case of Lincoln, he's on record. He wouldn't
have freed the slaves if he thought that by not freeing
them he could have ended the war.
In the first, by leaving out certain portions of the text
a case could be made, however dishonestly that even
Marx had given up on his ideas and in the case of
Lincoln a case could be made that he was a
hypocrite regarding his views on slavery.
<Actually he *was* a hypocrite but not in his views
about slavery>
In the case of Marx, it took nothing short of lying
to come to your conclusion. In the example of
Lincoln, it takes stupidity.
Lincoln "Freed the slaves" for entirely political
reasons. Everything, even the timing, was entirely
political.
Lincoln was no hypocrite.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Explanation - Invitation |
19 Apr 2005 06:57:55 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 19:51:36 -0400, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
<atheist@home.com> wrote
You snipped the statement about Karl Marx.
I responded in the long-winded article.
Abraham Lincoln represented a man who filed suit to have
a slave returned to him and won.
Interesting.
The object of both statements was to make a point about how
certain things can be stated and that by leaving out information
a dishonest political point can be made.
Hmmm...
In the case of Marx for instance what he said was that if his
son-in-law's socialist opinions were Marxism then he himself
was not a Marxist.
That's not "Leaving out," that's lying.
That's lying by leaving out.
What you stated was that Karl Marx said that he wasn't a
Marxist.
In the case of Lincoln he was applying the law.
In the case of Lincoln, he's on record. He wouldn't
have freed the slaves if he thought that by not freeing
them he could have ended the war.
I know that.
In the first, by leaving out certain portions of the text
a case could be made, however dishonestly that even
Marx had given up on his ideas and in the case of
Lincoln a case could be made that he was a
hypocrite regarding his views on slavery.
<Actually he *was* a hypocrite but not in his views
about slavery>
In the case of Marx, it took nothing short of lying
to come to your conclusion. In the example of
Lincoln, it takes stupidity.
You know, trying to have a conversation with you is absolutely
exasperating.
Views contrary to your own are "*****" a different opinion based on
information other than what you are familiar with, or even a different
interpretation of the same information is "dishonest" and frankly
while you constantly proclaim your brilliance and ability to see
things in a logical fashion you can't so much as read a simple
statement and understand it.
I can't for the life of me understand how you misunderstood the intent
of the statements about Marx and Lincoln when I spelled it out
clearly in black and white.
Earlier I had said:
"One sentence added or one missing in a report can change the
character of the information a great deal."
You accuse people of being dishonest yet you will snip posts in a
dishonest fashion in an attempt to make it seem as though something is
being said that is not.
You have the arrogant conviction of every other diehard dogmatist that
you are abolutely correct in your opinions and that anybody who
disagrees is either a liar or stupid.
You accuse Fred of worshipping Bush as though he is some sort of God
but I get the impression that if Bill Clinton walked into the room you
would grovel at his feet.
You accuse people of "preaching" and in the next breath you are
preaching your ***** off.
Ever have a single moment of introspection JTEM?
Ever even consider the possibility that you might be wrong?
Stupid questions I suppose.
"True believers" aren't really capable of questioning the dogma thats
been imprinted on their brains.
"True believers" actually don't want to question the dogma.
Lincoln "Freed the slaves" for entirely political
reasons. Everything, even the timing, was entirely
political.
Lincoln didn't free any slaves though he would have had he lived.
Lincoln was no hypocrite.
He was a hypocrite.
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Explanation - Invitation |
23 Apr 2005 04:29:52 AM |
|
|
<atheist@home.com> wrote
You know, trying to have a conversation with
you is absolutely exasperating.
Tell me about it. I can't even mumble to myself anymore,
because I always say *Something* that I disagree with...
Views contrary to your own are "*****" a different
opinion based on information other than what you are
familiar with,
You didn't state it as an opinion. You pronounced it as
fact.
So, yes, it was *****.
You also will very rarely defend anything you state.
So rarely, in fact, that I have yet to witness it.
You won't defend/support your statements, you issue
opinions as if they were fact, and yet you take offense
when someone calls *****.
Get over it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Explanation - Invitation |
23 Apr 2005 10:15:28 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 00:29:52 -0400, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
<atheist@home.com> wrote
You know, trying to have a conversation with
you is absolutely exasperating.
Tell me about it. I can't even mumble to myself anymore,
because I always say *Something* that I disagree with...
I know the feeling.
Views contrary to your own are "*****" a different
opinion based on information other than what you are
familiar with,
You didn't state it as an opinion. You pronounced it as
fact.
I state it as opinion.
I know that much of what I believe to be fact may be in error.
I accept that and don't mind in the least being corrected.
So, yes, it was *****.
You also state things as facts without citing a source for everything
you believe.
You also will very rarely defend anything you state.
So rarely, in fact, that I have yet to witness it.
Lol.
You won't defend/support your statements, you issue
opinions as if they were fact, and yet you take offense
when someone calls *****.
It isn't productive.
Get over it.
Get over yourself.
Your arrogance is underserved.
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Explanation - Invitation |
24 Apr 2005 12:50:26 AM |
|
|
<atheist@home.com> wrote
You also state things as facts without citing a source for
everything you believe.
That's true, but I usually enjoy contructing my case. The
problem is, I babble. I can't explain everything, support
my every word without babbling even more, and unless
the other person is a total retard (and not worth the time)
they're not going to dispute everything anyhow. Not every
detail. So quite often I try to keep things short(er) and
hold on to the long(winded) answer until someone
asks for it.
There are exceptions -- there always are -- even for
people like me who like to babble endlessly on
subjects.
One are the the people who challenge you when they
themselves are proclaiming the exact opposite. It's
not that they're the least bit open minded (they have
already pronounced their truth as "God" gave it to
them), and they have yet to support a damn thing they've
ever said.
For those people, I'd like THEM to cite for ME the
"evidence" on which they base their conclusions,
the "Evidence" that they find so compelling that they
can't bring themselves to consider anything else.
There's a practicle reason for this. Unlike them, I'm
actually being quite open minded.... in theory. Ignoring
for the moment that I usually know up front when
they're shooting partisan blanks, what I'm actually
asking them to do is to set the bar. I'm asking them,
by way of example, to establish exactly what is (and
is not) "credible evidence."
Of course, other examples of when I usually won't
bother is when I've already established a fact
numerous time, or when a fact has been established,
in general, to such an extent that just by asking the
person is revealing their supreme ignorance.
Example: They argue that the budget for [X] is way
to high, but they haven't got the faintest clue what
the budget for [X] actually is, and they reveal this
fact when you casually mention the budget for [X]
and they demand that you "Prove" it.
That's not a challenge, that's an alarm sounding.
You also will very rarely defend anything you state.
So rarely, in fact, that I have yet to witness it.
Lol.
It's good to be able to laugh at yourself.
You won't defend/support your statements, you issue
opinions as if they were fact, and yet you take offense
when someone calls *****.
It isn't productive.
Neither is spilling opinion as if it were fact.
Get over yourself.
Your arrogance is underserved.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Explanation - Invitation |
18 Apr 2005 12:42:35 PM |
|
|
<atheist@home.com> wrote
Two apples plus two apples equals four apples
is concrete fact.
An apple is only an apple because we agree it's an
apple.
But that's math.
"Math hard. Let's go shopping!"
On the other hand if one of the apples has a very
large worm eating through the middle it doesn't
quite equal the other three in a sense does it?
Even 4 doen't mean much of anything, if you're a
shipper and one of your units is 24.
Beyond that sense though, there is plenty that we
can & should accept.
Why?
Because, beyond the hypothetical sense that we can
know nothing for certain, we have no choice but to
accept much for certain, just to exist.
Not only do we have to hold as true things which appear
to us as concrete facts, but often times we must operate
on what we know are assumptions.
We have no choices. Our lives, our culture requires it.
But that wasn't the point I was making. My point was
that my conflict with "Fred" stems from his religious
belief in the lunatic right & their god, George Bush.
Again, the lunatic left has their own gods and godesses.
You are welcome to make such a case, using supporting
evidence, but I have little interest in pronouncements.
You're not my minister and I am not your flock. Do not
preach to me. Construct a case or don't bother.
I support and respect Bush for several reasons.
His stance on terrorrism and pre-emptive strikes being two.
I'm not aware of a single politician who took a different
"stance" after 911, but I am aware of the fact that Bush &
the Republicans most certainly did take a different stance
before 9/11.
Not that Bush's ACTIONS have evolved any over that
time.
Numerous members of his own administration have
come forward saying that the planning to invade Iraq
was being worked on from the begining, starting months
before 9/11.
Funny thing is that he is getting wailed by many
conservatives because they see him doing some very
liberal things.
They detest his heartfelt stance on illegal aliens for instance.
I know that I do. I'm horrified at the prospects of our
government not only seeking to artificially drive down wages
in an inflationary economy, but actually believing that this
is a good idea.
"Inflation, non-existant under Clinton, is now rising faster
than wages. Quick! Let's import cheap forgeign labor to
artificially force wages lower!"
His position imo isn't just humane, it's perfectly rational.
It's shameful, and quite inhumane.
The "plan" requires exploitation wages being paid to these
foreign workers.
That is the whole point.
True "Compassion" would worry about all the Mexican
laborers, not just the ones needed to increase profits for the
chosen few here.
What Mexico needs is regime change. What Mexico needs
is a government that doesn't only represent the royalty-like
rich of Mexico. What Mexico needs is a government that
hasn't spent the better part of 100 years looking out for the
interest of the rich elite, even as it spent little time worrying
about the plight of the poverty-stricken masses (and has
done even less).
Believe me, no government that views tens of millions of
its own people as a waste product to be ejected into a
neighboring state deserves to remain in power.
The very idea is in total opposition of all America stands
for.
"Government OF the people, BY the people and FOR
the people."
Countless millions of Mexicans are literally viewed by
their government as a waste product. They want to get
rid of them. They want them to leave and come here.
They even published a pamphlet instructing them how.
Regime change.
Clinton used his position as president to discourage
it and that's just a sad fact.
I'll explain the situation, and then point out why you're
being dishonest here.
First, the situation:
The figthing has been going on for decades, but the actual
genocide was pretty much limited to a period of 100 days.
Assuming nobody had a crystal ball, they wouldn't have
even known about the genocide until some time AFTER
it had already begun.
But let's look at what Clinton was dealing with.
Clinton had previously had his ***** handed to him by
the Republicans over Somalia. It was in Africa, just as
Rwanda is. It was a humanitarian mission, just as any
mission to Rwanda would have been. There was lots &
lots of violence in Somalia, though nowhere near as much
as was going on in Rwanda.
But there was a big difference. You see, Clinton was
merely continuing Bush senior's policies in the case
of Somalia.
That didn't so much as slow down the knives. Heck, I
just peeked on google and found lunatic right-wingers
who ARE STILL whining about Clinton and "His"
policy toward Somalia.
No, Clinton HAD NO DOMESTIC SUPPORT for
doing *Anything* in Rwanda. In fact, he faced a
well financed, well organized lunatic right-wing
effort to attack any such policy... exactly as he had
already in the case of Somalia.
But why you're dishonest:
John Bolton was asked a hypothetical. John Bolton was
asked what he'd do differently KNOWING WHAT HE
KNOWS NOW. John Bolton couldn't learn from the
past, couldn't benefit from mistakes. Clinton did.
Unlike John Bolton, Clinton learned from the mistake
in Rwanda, and acted in Kosovo. The same lunatic
right-wing brought out it's knives, the same lunatic
right-wing that slandered him for following Bush
senior's policies in Somalia started slandering him
in the case of Kosovo. But Clinton had learned from
the mistake in Rwanda, and acted anyway.
We rely on reporters and political writers who very
often have their on agendas which can cloud their
views.
No "we" don't. You do.
Where do you get your information then?
Numerous sources, including right-wing sources. I don't
live in a plastic bubble.
If you are not in a room with a man when he express an
opinion don't you have to rely on the person who relays
the information about what he said and what it meant?
In the example of "news," it's usually a case where many
people are in the room, and many people are reporting
on events. It's quite easy to get multiple accounts of the
same event.
Using multiple stories, even the most biased reporting can
usually deliver the facts, the "Who, what, where & when."
Most of the bias... not all of it but most of the bias is
centered on WHY. Most (but by no means "All") of the
bias is in attributing motives.
A good example was when Bill O'Reilly reported again
and again (and again, and again) that Clinton had travelled
to Europe trying to win himself a Nobel Prize.
Without inventing that motivation -- with O'Reilly pretending
that he can read minds -- he literally had nothing bad to say
about Clinton.
But, by inventing that motivation, anything Clinton could
have done, any accomplishment he might have managed,
is immediately turned against him as a selfish act.
"He only did it because he wants a prize."
Carl Marx, toward the end of his life said that he was
not a Marxist. What do you think of that?
I've never put a lot of thought into Marx.
Unlike the current administration, I'm a capitalist.
I actually have room in my economics for people.
I have checked sources. I have verified information.
How?
I've told you. I've answered this questions a number of
times.
Have you done personal interviews with those involved?
I don't have to. Not all news is useful. Not all news is useful
only if it is 100% accurate. Not all news comes from the
exact same source.
If "Bias" is your only concern, you need only find two
equally biased news sources -- each opposing the other
in bias -- and you've solved your problem.
What they both agree in is unbiased.
It's one of the ways I converted a Bush supporter,
sympathetic to the lunatic right, into an educated
voter.
Lol!
Interested.
"Educated."
Yes.
Just look at yourself.
Okay. There. I'm done.
All those loaded words and terms.
No. Again, no. I esxplained the situation. I didn't stop
at making a pronouncement.
He who controls the language controls the mind.
Assuming that what you say is true, it's still not
relevant.
Because, what I said -- what I described -- is true,
and it is accurately called "educated"... even
"informed."
Finally, she saved one of her lunatic right-wing
e-mails just for me. It concerned Hillary and the
Gold Star mothers. Anyhow, I grabbed her laptop,
found the Gold Star Mothers web site on google,
and showed her THEIR statement denouncing the
smear as false.
That was a good thing.
Well done.
The truth.
The only damn thing that should matter to anyone.
But that was just one issue.
Aren't there others?
Of course.
She's a fool if that was all it took to change her "mind."
Not really, no. You get orange juice from oranges. You
get lies from liars.
These lunatic right-wingers were ("are") proven liars.
But there were other examples, though mostly concerning
specific candidates & races.
I don't listen to the "rightwing" crap myself.
Any more than I listen to the "leftwing" trash.
I doubt that you are fairly & accurately applying the
"crap" label.
The lunatic right-wing is not just based on this, but
it's based on the idea that they have to go out of
their way to overcompensate for (what they hope
is) less than perfect objectivity that conflicts with
them.
The left is no different.
Show me. Demonstrate your point. Construct a case
here.
Again, you are not my minister. Do not preach to me.
It's the left that demands re-education camps in the
form of sensitivity training and cultural diversity
classes to get our minds right.
No it isn't.
It's the insurance companies.
It's the left that demands that we dare not speak the
thing that should not be spoken or think the thing
that should not be thought.
I'm snipping the rest. Too bad. There's hundreds of
words here and you really deserve a response.
But I desrve something other than preaching.
Make a case. Please.
Again, you offer nothing more than pronouncements.
We may not cite all the information that leads
us to certain conclusions but we seldom draw
from a single source or opinion to formulate our
own.
Maybe, but it's safe for us to assume that the
so-called "information" cited is relevant.
How is that safe?
Because the opposite is to assume that they are drooling
imbeciles.
We can't conceivably cite every source that leads us
to certain conclusions.
No. But we can assume that those cited are relevant, and
that they do see some connection.
Exactly the opposite. People will viciously assault
any action.
Example: Clinton in Kosovo.
He did very good there.
Damned good.
Who complained?
I just placed: Clinton Kosovo
Into Google, and the first six hits were all negative towards
Clinton.
By the way, this is further proof that the lunatic right-wing
can't even benefit from hindsight.
Clinton's unabashed success in Kosovo is no reason for
them to stop whining about his efforts.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Clinton+Kosovo
And how were we threatened by what was going on in Kosovo?
The mission compares to what we would have been doing in
Rwanda. In other words, it supports the idea that Clinton had
learned from his mistakes, while the opposition (the Republicans)
had not.
And, heck, that was before the Republicans decided that the
best man to serve in the U.N. stated under oath that he is
unable to benefit from hindsight, that he hasn't larned anything
from past mistakes.
You see..you snipped the part that indicated the statement was
a joke.
You directed some unflattering statements toward me, and
when challenged to either support them or retract you did
neither.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "marika" |
|
| Title: Re: Explanation - Invitation |
19 Apr 2005 10:45:39 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Two apples plus two apples equals four apples is concrete fact.
But that's math.
I hope that's not taste as well.
On the other hand if one of the apples has a very large worm eating
through the middle it doesn't quite equal the other three in a sense
does it?
I don't know, I would rather have sweet potato pirohi at the Odessa in
NYC
mk5000
http://blibs.com/rytrix/flash/barbjump.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Explanation - Invitation |
20 Apr 2005 02:48:56 AM |
|
|
On 19 Apr 2005 15:45:39 -0700, "marika" <marika5000@gmail.com> wrote:
atheist@home.com wrote:
Two apples plus two apples equals four apples is concrete fact.
But that's math.
I hope that's not taste as well.
On the other hand if one of the apples has a very large worm eating
through the middle it doesn't quite equal the other three in a sense
does it?
I don't know, I would rather have sweet potato pirohi at the Odessa in
NYC
mk5000
http://blibs.com/rytrix/flash/barbjump.html
Lol!
Damn...I'm legless.
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, AthD h.c, Kicking AWOLs Cocaine Snorting Ass" |
|
| Title: Re: Explanation - Invitation |
14 Apr 2005 05:11:44 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 00:58:34 -0400, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
I'll offer an explanation here, and invite anyone to
comment/criticize my position.
According to Fred Stone, all the people that UNHCR and UNESCO helped
out are outweighed by all the Iraqi civilians killed by Bush's
militray intelligence.
And, oh, this is usenet. Don't take it serious. I know
that we could spend the next few days taking each
other apart, and I'd still be willing to sit down with
you over some drinks, as we dissed everyone else
on the group behind their backs. Just be honest and
have a real point to make, that's all I ask...
Anyhow, the perception is that I often involve myself
in political discussions, perhaps even off-topic
political discussions. I myself have denied that, insisting
that I rarely argue politics.
I'm right. That is to say, I'm being honest. I rarely argue
politics, and I say that as someone who truly would
enjoy arguing politics. Instead, what I do is argue facts,
or, just as accurately, "beliefs."
Dogma.
What follows is a clear cut, textbook example of what
I speak, together with a thorough explanation as to why
it qualifies as a religious argument -- based on faith --
and not a political argument.
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote
Since when does the UN actually give a ***** about
the welfare of this country or the planet? Does
Rwanda or Darfur ring any bells with you? How
about Oil-for-Palaces?
Now, reading this (and other comments), "Fred" leaves
use with the following impressions:
1) "Fred" doesn't like the U.N.
2) "Fred" is using examples such as the U.N.'s failure
to act in Rwanda to support his position that the U.N. is
a worthless organization.
3) "Fred" supports Bush's nomination of John Bolton
as Ambassador to the U.N.
Now if anyone feels that I'm unfairly characterizing "Fred's"
position here, please -- PLEASE! -- make your objections
known, together with an explanation.
Because, as things now stand, it appears that "Fred's"
conclusions are self-defeating, that his actions run
contrary to his own stated goals. It appears that "Fred's"
stated position is entirely faith based, entirely centered
on his belief of George Bush as our lord & savior.
Now why I say this is because of this one simple fact:
If you think the U.N. is bad, and the failure to do more
(or much of anything) in the case of Rwanda is why
they are bad, it is incumbent upon "Fred" to denounce
the nomination of John Bolton.
One of the direct questions asked of John Bolton today,
in his nomination hearing, was, given the benefit of
hindsight, what (if anything) he would have done
differently in the case of Rwanda.
John Bolton didn't just say that he wasn't sure that he'd
do anything differently, he said he wasn't sure if we
could have done anything differently.
This is with the benefit of hindsight. Not only did John
Bolton totally disagree with "Fred" on the idea that the
U.N. sucks because of things like Rwanda, but he man
isn't even sure if a different course of action existed
within the realm of possibilities.
Clearly, whatever "Fred" himself identifies as "Wrong"
about the U.N. is just as "Wrong" for John Bolton, yet
"Fred's" conclusion is exactly the opposite of this
inescapable reality.
"Fred" says the U.N. should have acted differently in
cases like Rwanda, and yet he supports the nomination
of a man who isn't willing to say that a different course
of action was even realistic. George Bush's choice is
support by "Fred" despite the fact that he is in total
conflict with "Fred's" stated priorities.
"Fred's" faith in his lord & savior, George Bush, has
trumped "Fred's" logic, even "Fred's" own best interest.
That's religion. But, heck, it certainly isn't politics.
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec (aka aka Yang's little poltregeist *****)
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.6 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -1546 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
