| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"Cary Kittrell" |
| Date: |
23 Jul 2003 01:21:04 PM |
| Object: |
Re: IRAQI REGIME TAKES A HARD HIT LIBS TAKE HIT TOO |
In article <bfm74c$en0$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com> "CB" <CB@prayforme.com> writes:
<
<
<<otis_p_driftwood@hotmail.com> wrote in message
<news:89mrhv818s1ra60k0bbj6am8li31sj0jkc@4ax.com...
<> On 23 Jul 2003 00:38:14 GMT, Stewart Millen
<> <Stewart_Millen@hotmail.com> wrote:
<>
<> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
<> >
<> >otis_p_driftwood@hotmail.com wrote in
<> >news:6skrhvkq9mkkmelpd6122204bu7487jrb7@4ax.com:
<> >
<> >> On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 00:00:31 +0000 (UTC),
<> >> (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
<> >
<> >>>So, murderous despotism is OK as long as they're
<> >>>killing a few million folks we are miffed with
<> >>>on the side?
<> >>
<> >> It was the right thing to do at the time.
<> >
<> >And it made Hussein's Iraq a local bully,
<>
<> No, Hussein did that by himself.
<
<Stewart's of the philosophy that no one is responsible for their own
<inappropriate actions. It's a matter of rationalizing who gets the 'buck'.
<After all, it's ok to lie under oath when it's about sex. He wouldn't have
<committed perjury if not for that mean ole Ken Starr.
This raises an interesting point. Tell me, do you hug yourself
yourself with a quick fluttery glee each time you indulge in these
delicious little episodes of righteous indignation and outraged
innocence?
And I mean that. Please, do not make the mistake of thinking what I
just asked was some kind gratuitous net.insult, merely something
tossed off in an attempt to be hurtful. On the contrary, I've long
wondered at -- and have long intended to ask you about -- this smug
assumption of your own moral superiority and your corresponding need
to demonize others in the vilest -- let us not mention most innacurate
-- terms that you can think of.
What you just said to Stewart makes a nice illustration. You inform
him -- and me and the rest of the world as well -- that his philosophy
is that no one is responsible for their on bahavior. Makes you feel
good, doesn't it? Isn't it just so ... so NICE to have someone who is
so damn despicable that you get to feel all virtuous by comparison?
The problem is that Stewart never said that; you told him this is what
he thinks. And the problem with THAT is that in five years of reading
Stewart's posts and corresponding on occasion via email, I've never
once heard him espouse this. I've never seen him say ANYTHING that
would indicate he feels this way.
But this must be his philosophy; you just told us so. Not only that,
we now know that Stewart thinks that Clinton's perjury was fine
(though Stewart's never said so), and we also now know that Stewart
blames the whole thing on Starr.
You know, you should try re-reading a few of your exchanges with
Stewart. Try to listen for the tone. If this were a face-to-face
debate, something at a bar or over the kitchen table, Stewart would be
the soft-spoken and even-handed one who never raises his voice, rarely
interrupts, and always makes sure that he understands what you just
said -- but is also quite resolved that you understand what he is
saying as well. And you would be the flushed face, often sneering,
frequently insulting, pounding the table, poking the chest and cutting
him short at every third sentence or so.
An outsider might have some difficulty discerning which was the
Christian and which the agnostic.
But of course it's not just Stewart. Just as we now know that Stewart
opposes personal responsiblity and rationalizes all liberal scandals,
we also learn from you that all "Progressive Liberals" hate america,
all are "cowards", all "treasonous", all sexual libertines who are
incapable of "natural affection", all pray for the economy to tank,
all kiss "the black eye of evil" in their love of Saddam and their
hatred of liberty, all hold abortion to be a high moral touchstone,
all are bent on denying you personal property and individual freedom,
and all despise God.
Just as Stewart, who may be the nicest guy I've never met, is
completely unrecognizable under the whack-a-clown face your needs
compel you to paint on him, just so not a one of the hundreds of
liberals I've known remotely resemble the demonic description above
(words drawn directly from your posts). Sorry, but that's not me,
it's not Stewart, it's not anyone I've known. It's your very own
personal mythological monster. Your creation.
But never mind. Even if we're actually not like that, even we're just
people who happen to disagree with you on some points, and that
honestly, it doesn't matter. Doesn't matter because that fact fails to
meet your need for the head rush.
And that's what it is, isn't it? This hatred you nourish and nurture
and tend, this outrage you direct towards these non-existent enemies
of your own device. It's quite simply a rush. A high. There's never
any other high quite like a good jolt of proud, dismissive, smug,
overbearing, sneering contempt.
It is a rush, a rush like no other. And addictive in the bargain.
Not to mention proud, lacking in fellow feeling... and a sin.
But that's not so important, not compared to the fact that it. just.
feels. so. damn. good.
Doesn't it?
-- cary
.
|
|
| User: "CB" |
|
| Title: Re: IRAQI REGIME TAKES A HARD HIT LIBS TAKE HIT TOO |
23 Jul 2003 02:28:50 PM |
|
|
Now you know how comparing Goodness to Evil feels like when comparing Hitler
to Otis or President Bush
I'm sure you guys aren't all that I've described and for that I apologize.
Names and nicks often become homogenous over time, just as ideologies get
filtered into stereotypes.
We all have our own faults and come short of perfection. Believe it or not,
not all people share the same humanitarian values. The Hitlers and Saddams
should not be confused with people who have never killed at all.
Do you see the absurdity in trying to equate two entirely different people
or do you stand by the moral relative comparison?
CB
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cary Kittrell" <>
Newsgroups:
alt.education,alt.journalism.newspapers.wkly-worldnews,alt.politics.democrat
s.d,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.usa.repub
lican
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 2:21 PM
Subject: Re: IRAQI REGIME TAKES A HARD HIT LIBS TAKE HIT TOO
In article <bfm74c$en0$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com> "CB" <CB@prayforme.com>
writes:
<
<
<<otis_p_driftwood@hotmail.com> wrote in message
<news:89mrhv818s1ra60k0bbj6am8li31sj0jkc@4ax.com...
<> On 23 Jul 2003 00:38:14 GMT, Stewart Millen
<> <Stewart_Millen@hotmail.com> wrote:
<>
<> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
<> >
<> >otis_p_driftwood@hotmail.com wrote in
<> >news:6skrhvkq9mkkmelpd6122204bu7487jrb7@4ax.com:
<> >
<> >> On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 00:00:31 +0000 (UTC),
<> >> (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
<> >
<> >>>So, murderous despotism is OK as long as they're
<> >>>killing a few million folks we are miffed with
<> >>>on the side?
<> >>
<> >> It was the right thing to do at the time.
<> >
<> >And it made Hussein's Iraq a local bully,
<>
<> No, Hussein did that by himself.
<
<Stewart's of the philosophy that no one is responsible for their own
<inappropriate actions. It's a matter of rationalizing who gets the
'buck'.
<After all, it's ok to lie under oath when it's about sex. He wouldn't
have
<committed perjury if not for that mean ole Ken Starr.
This raises an interesting point. Tell me, do you hug yourself
yourself with a quick fluttery glee each time you indulge in these
delicious little episodes of righteous indignation and outraged
innocence?
And I mean that. Please, do not make the mistake of thinking what I
just asked was some kind gratuitous net.insult, merely something
tossed off in an attempt to be hurtful. On the contrary, I've long
wondered at -- and have long intended to ask you about -- this smug
assumption of your own moral superiority and your corresponding need
to demonize others in the vilest -- let us not mention most innacurate
-- terms that you can think of.
What you just said to Stewart makes a nice illustration. You inform
him -- and me and the rest of the world as well -- that his philosophy
is that no one is responsible for their on bahavior. Makes you feel
good, doesn't it? Isn't it just so ... so NICE to have someone who is
so damn despicable that you get to feel all virtuous by comparison?
The problem is that Stewart never said that; you told him this is what
he thinks. And the problem with THAT is that in five years of reading
Stewart's posts and corresponding on occasion via email, I've never
once heard him espouse this. I've never seen him say ANYTHING that
would indicate he feels this way.
But this must be his philosophy; you just told us so. Not only that,
we now know that Stewart thinks that Clinton's perjury was fine
(though Stewart's never said so), and we also now know that Stewart
blames the whole thing on Starr.
You know, you should try re-reading a few of your exchanges with
Stewart. Try to listen for the tone. If this were a face-to-face
debate, something at a bar or over the kitchen table, Stewart would be
the soft-spoken and even-handed one who never raises his voice, rarely
interrupts, and always makes sure that he understands what you just
said -- but is also quite resolved that you understand what he is
saying as well. And you would be the flushed face, often sneering,
frequently insulting, pounding the table, poking the chest and cutting
him short at every third sentence or so.
An outsider might have some difficulty discerning which was the
Christian and which the agnostic.
But of course it's not just Stewart. Just as we now know that Stewart
opposes personal responsiblity and rationalizes all liberal scandals,
we also learn from you that all "Progressive Liberals" hate america,
all are "cowards", all "treasonous", all sexual libertines who are
incapable of "natural affection", all pray for the economy to tank,
all kiss "the black eye of evil" in their love of Saddam and their
hatred of liberty, all hold abortion to be a high moral touchstone,
all are bent on denying you personal property and individual freedom,
and all despise God.
Just as Stewart, who may be the nicest guy I've never met, is
completely unrecognizable under the whack-a-clown face your needs
compel you to paint on him, just so not a one of the hundreds of
liberals I've known remotely resemble the demonic description above
(words drawn directly from your posts). Sorry, but that's not me,
it's not Stewart, it's not anyone I've known. It's your very own
personal mythological monster. Your creation.
But never mind. Even if we're actually not like that, even we're just
people who happen to disagree with you on some points, and that
honestly, it doesn't matter. Doesn't matter because that fact fails to
meet your need for the head rush.
And that's what it is, isn't it? This hatred you nourish and nurture
and tend, this outrage you direct towards these non-existent enemies
of your own device. It's quite simply a rush. A high. There's never
any other high quite like a good jolt of proud, dismissive, smug,
overbearing, sneering contempt.
It is a rush, a rush like no other. And addictive in the bargain.
Not to mention proud, lacking in fellow feeling... and a sin.
But that's not so important, not compared to the fact that it. just.
feels. so. damn. good.
Doesn't it?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
