Attack on Afghanistan

at99 · Post by **at99** » Sat Oct 13, 2001 11:21 pm

[QUOTE]Originally posted by fable:
[qb]C'mon , I am reasonable.

[ 11-20-2001: Message edited by: at99 ]

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Sat Oct 13, 2001 11:36 pm

Originally posted by at99:
Ok so you wont answer these questions. Your just defending yourself. This type of response is not good enough and is self-deluding. Like an alcholic who wont admit he has a problem.

<snip>

I dont intend to insult anyone personally.
So if you want to continue please start with the above questions in a new topic.

at99, if you don't intend to insult anyone personally, you should not accuse other users of being self deluding like alcoholists.

You started this discussion by posting subjective, prejudiced and unfounded statements about Arabic cultures. When you opinions were questioned you refused to reply on our questions, instead you merely posted new arbitrary, unfounded prejudiced opinions. You have been critized for this, and you respond by making an ad hominem at Fable. You can't hide the fact that you haven't managed to find any arguments for you our position behind a personal attack on another member. FYI "Not good enough" is not a valid argument, it's just your narrow-minded personal view.

I have no interest in discussing further with you.

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Sun Oct 14, 2001 12:09 am

*as CE leaves the discussion, SS decides to join in*

Originally posted by at99:
Ok so you wont answer these questions. Your just defending yourself. This type of response is not good enough and is self-deluding. Like an alcholic who wont admit he has a problem.

Here's an idea, at99. Instead of accusing fable of doing the opposite of what he's done, why don't you do what fable has done instead of what you're accusing fable of doing. I've not read every portion of this discussion, but what I have read shows others answering your questions but you ignoring their questions. It is true that fable has a tendancy to forget about responding to one or two of the "points" being made in a discussion, I have yet to see him do it in this discussion.

Originally posted by at99:
This is getting no where so lets start fresh.
OK OK. Relax.

Relax? Perhaps you should follow your own advice, ne?

Originally posted by at99:
How about you put your point of view in a NEW thread. You can have first go. I would like to hear your opinion in TODAYS world on how

Define today's world. For one, today is different for different people. It's Saturday, Oct 13th in Hawaii; but it is Sunday, Oct 14th in England? Which counts as today, ne?

Anything within the past century is relative to today, for the most part in a discussion like this as that is modern day times, whereas prior to that is getting into history of which no one alive today remembers.

Originally posted by at99:
1 the west is fighting terrorism wrong because of (your opinion)..

What if we don't think the west is fighting terrorism wrong? What if we have no opinion on this point at all?

Originally posted by at99:
2 Mid-eatern governments are just as good as the west because of (your opinion)

What do you mean by "just as good"?

Originally posted by at99:
3 The west needs to understand this (your opinion)

The west needs to understand a lot. So does the middle east, far east, south, north, and every other klucking place on the globe.

Originally posted by at99:
4 Mid-eastern cultures are just as good as the west (for these reasons)

All cultures have their own benifits. Just because one disagrees with a culture does not mean it is not a good culture. I'm not saying that ME has a good culture or a bad culture as I don't know enough about them to know for sure.

Originally posted by at99:
This way other people can respond when it is more public. Either for or against you. I have had enough of this and it needs to be a seperate thread. I am still unsure of where you stand so I hope this can clear the air.

Other people can resond to it just as easily in this thread as in another thread.

Why are you unsure of where fable stands on the matter? If you actually read his posts, you should have a fair idea of where he stands. He is not one to beat around the bush, or so it seems to me.

Originally posted by at99:
I dont intend to insult anyone personally.

erhaps you should think more before you speak if you really don't want to insult people personally, ne?

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Oct 14, 2001 12:15 am

Originally posted by at99:
Ok so you wont answer these questions. Your just defending yourself. This type of response is not good enough and is self-deluding. Like an alcholic who wont admit he has a problem.

This is getting no where so lets start fresh.
OK OK. Relax.

Meaning: "I'll insult you snidely, back off swiftly, show I'm nice on the surface and switch subjects." Sorry, I don't buy it, but I am amused you think I would fall for something that shallow.

You know, this isn't like a conversation in a television debate where the audience can be easily distracted by tricks, and forget what was said a few minutes ago. It's all in print, which is what sets me to chuckling. Anybody can look back over the absurd allegations you've made, the inability to define your subject, and defend it.

Need a reminder...? You claimed an identity between a culture's rating compared to other cultures, and its ability to perform, or produce. Here's what I wrote in reply:

There isn't a system anywhere that compares cultures on the basis of production. If cultural production determined the value of a nation, Nazi Germany was a far superior culture to Finland, which hid all its Jews throughout World War II and refused to give a single one up to the Holocaust.

International success with sports or entertainment figures has, again, never been a measure of a culture's worth. Soviet Russia produced an enormous amount of Gold medal Olympics winners. It took the International Chess Championships for roughly forty years. Its musicians and scientists were the envy of everybody. But the nation's people lived in a climate of constricted fear, knowing that a slip of the tongue could mean disparment from the Communist Party, loss of job, maybe even deportation to a gulag--a Soviet-style concentration camp, usually in Siberia. Arguably, the USSR, for all its exportable production, was a failure in developing reasonable standards of happiness among its people, or meeting them.

Production doesn't cut it, then, as a measurement of national or cultural quality...

Then you asked for details, details, details, despite the fact that I'd given you details, details, details which are again written above, disproving your theory of production as a means to measure a culture's intrinsic worth. Did you discuss the examples? No. You refuse to get into the details, yourself, even when they're handed to you.

Finally, I requested that you quantify the culture you're disparaging. Twice I've asked you to explain to us all whether its Arabic, Islamic, MidEastern, Mesopotamian, Afghanistani or Pashtun culture. And again, you refuse to comply. @At99, I really have better things to do with my time than watch these tiresome mindgames of yours. Either respond to these issues which you yourself initially brought up, and which I've directly answered--culture as production, and the supposed inferiority of a culture you won't define--or go present these views which are looking every second more and more like bigotry to some group who are more easily deluded.

[ 10-14-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Sun Oct 14, 2001 6:53 am

Originally posted by ThorinOakensfield:
@lazurss- we can't really say any one group is evil.
Bush does not call bin laden by his name, but as "the evil ones" and "we must destroy the great evil".
He's making it seem like Lord of the Rings or something.
"And the lord of Mordor came out. The great evil. One must not mention his name for it is a curse by itself. The forces of good men of Gondor and the horsemen of Rohan and the elves of the north will join to fight the forces of evil, etc. "

He's making it like some fantasy book.
They call the US evil, we call them evil. Yes i agreee what they did was evil, but calling anybody evil is incorrect.
They call the US evil for leaving them in suc a bad state.
nothing, excpet a few people are evil and good. You can't call the US good, they have racist police that arrest kill any young black males they see, here in New York City and New Jersey.
IN D&D terms you could the majority of countires are LN.

I call a person evil because they broke my tennis racket.
They call me evil because i took their money......<snip>

As I have pointed out (a couple of times, I think): to the extent that an individual supports a bad government, that person is bad (wrong, evil, whatever). A "bad" government is one that does not respect the rights of it's citizens. I certainly think that the Taliban qualifies in this respect. So, I would indeed say that anyone that supports the Taliban is EVIL. I will not back down from that opinion. Please, please, please: can't we at least agree that a government that does the things the Taliban does is EVIL? I know you are all very smart, well-educated, and informed individuals - you KNOW what is going on in that nation - can you not bring yourselves to condemn it? If not, the world will never change.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Oct 14, 2001 7:21 am

Originally posted by Weasel:
And the circle continues....

propped up terrible dictatorships in third world countries to gain allies in the fight against terrorism.

I hate to see this happen, but it is going to.

Don't get me wrong...I believe the terrorist need to be dealt with, but don't close your eyes to what it is going to cost.

Deals will be made to get the one's...deals I as an American will have to live with.

Absolutely, @Weasel. As I think I wrote elsewhere, the day the bombings occured and Dubbyah announced his desire to form "a united front against terrorism," I turned to my wife and said, "You watch. We're going to hear the White House refer to Chechnyan freedom fighters as terrorists in a month." And that's exactly what's happening.

It's fine to speak of terrorists when the issue is black and white: the Spanish Etta group, bin Ladan, the pro-Mao guerrila fighters in Columbia, the Sierra Leonian rebels who committed such terrible atrocities a few years back. These are people who will stop at nothing to get what they want, and with whom no compromise seems possible.

But what about the Palestinian freedom fighters, who want a homeland where they're in the majority, and don't like the Israeli habit of expanding settlements as quickly as possible to create "facts on the ground?" While Sharon, himself guilty of atrocities against Palestinians, be able to set the agenda?

Or how about the Falun Gong sect whose mere existence China has labelled "terrorist?" Or the Chinese government's posture that regards all declared Buddhists as terrorists and all native Tibetans as a potential cultural threat, despite Article 18 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights--which China has signed?

Dubbyah would appear to be trading shortterm gains for longterm losses, which I strongly question. He'll be gone (with any luck) in three years, but the world will have to put up with the coalitions he's formed.

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Sun Oct 14, 2001 7:27 am

Originally posted by fable:
...<snip> Them's my opinion of objectivity/subjectivity, gratis.

Well, we will indeed (as you conclude in your post) have to agree to disagree on this one.

Um, they aren't. In fact, you quoted me a bit further down, offering a criticism from some quarters of current US freedom and fairness. Besides, you can't judge a culture by the actions it's taken in the last twenty-five years. We'd be revising our views of what's good, bad and ugly constantly.

Right (about the modern-era point). And right about the not being able to judge cultures (are you admitting here, BTW, that cultures can in fact be judged?) only on present-moment - to an extent. Really, all I wished to avoid is this whole "well, the US was built on the slave trade, so the US is just as bad as everybody else, so don't go saying that they can judge anyone." We are all aware that the US has done BAD things. Indeed, we are now fighting in Afghanistan one of our own foreign policy blunders. (Parenthetically, I can't help but point out that everybody seems perfectly willing to judge and condemn the US, but entirely unwilling to judge or condemn any third world nation. Curious.) But the amazing thing about the US is that we have this government which is more responsive to the people than most other governments around the world, and we have the ability to CHANGE it when we decide that it is doing things wrong. Take the school segregation issue: it was wrong for people of color to be segregated, we (finally) came around to that point of view, and we changed. Do you think that such change is possible in China?

I won't get into a defense/attack argument with you concerning the US. Had I known how much it might annoy you, I would have chosen an example from another culture, simply to promote clarity in our discussion. That example seems to get in the way of things, although I believe it is appropriate enough.

I don't think I got annoyed. Really. I am trying to be very even in my responses. I guess I do get a bit strident at times, but it is because IDEAS MATTER TO ME! Maybe you and some others here (maybe, I don't know, and I'm not accusing), but maybe you just think this is all mental gymnastics, and no one can ever really be right or wrong or good or bad, but I believe that ideas can change this world, and I fervently wish to see good ideas promoted and bad ideas discussed until they are found out. So, excuse my tone, but believe me when I say: this discussion is important, and I am not upset - see

Say, rather, that I select an important fact about his administration for the sake of my point. This hardly constitutes Reagan-bashing. (Though I was in my thirties during his presidency, and it had some remarkable failures at times--such as the removal of federal banking regulations which led directly to the infamous Texas Bank Scandal and the federal bailout of $40 billion dollars, which was subsequently blamed on Bush Sr. But if you're saying that Reagan's presidency was a perfect one, I'll be happy to withdraw the point, and substitute a new one that meets my requirements, and is more to your liking.

I neither defended Reagan, nor got upset with your use of him as an example. I just thing people often take him as an example of everything bad about US government (on the right, anyway), and I don't know that he was such a bad President. But my overall point was: I don't know. I do not have the facts regarding Reagan's era to discuss the issues with you. If you would like to discuss banking or - what was the subject referencing Reagan you brought up yesterday - legal aid to the poor(?) in general, I can do that, but as I said in my post, you were missing my main point.

You are welcome to argue this with legal and political experts the world over who are all convinced that their nation's constitutions and frameworks on human rights are the best possible. I think all of you could have a fine time together.

This does not advance our discussion. But, again, I realy think you are missing my point. The main topic here is (as far as I can tell) a discussion of governments being good or bad. I am putting forth the US as an example of good, but OF COURSE there are other good governments. I do not wish to get into a discussion of Britain or US - who's got a better government. In general, both repsect individual rights, and so, are good.

I don't think China has a bad government, myself. I find there are aspects of the current Chinese government that I personally loathe, but there are others I approve of. "Bad" is such a tiny word, IMO, to summarize such an awesome range of material that must be gathered, sifted, organized, and synthesized. I personally couldn't do it. Obviously, you have, so we must agree to disagree once more upon the fundamental nature of reality.

OMG! You can't even bring yourself to say that CHINA has a bad government? Fable, I am begging you, you can't mean this?! This is a government that has no respect for the lives of it's people. Did you not see Tianamen? Have you never heard of Tibet? Please, please, Fable, you must explain what "good" you can find in this way of ruling a people.

OK. I think CE had one more post I have to answer to, then I have homework to do. Don't worry if you don't hear from me for a bit - I'm really busy - but I'll keep looking in and talking about these items - THEY ARE VERY, VERY IMPORTANT.

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Sun Oct 14, 2001 7:47 am

Originally posted by C Elegans:
@Lazarus: IMO it's a naive simplification to split the world in "good" and "evil". I also think it's a dangerous view, since it easily lends itself to demonization of other people and hampers necessary understanding for learning how horrible and cruel events can be avoided in the future. If you look at the Nazi's or the Taliban's as "pure evil", whereas you and other Westerners are "good", you will never understand how we can avoid that a person like Hitler can be elected in a fully valid, free democratic election. Do you think all the Germans who voted for him were "evil"? What about the European colonial wars? 20 million Africans killed in a few years. Were all the Brits, Belgian, French, German, who supported this, "evil"? The American slave system? Were all the people who supported this also "evil"? What do you mean by "good" and "evil", please define.

I think I have gone over this a few times, but here it is again: yes, we MUST judge ALL people's ways of living, and we MUST condemn those which are bad. Otherwise, we can never, ever, ever progress as a human race. And, as to governments: if a government suppresses a people or violtaes individual rights as a matter of course, it is an EVIL government. Anyone who supports that government is EVIL, and must be so judged. The US slave trade was WRONG. Naziism was WRONG. To have supported it would have been wrong, and to not have stood up and said "this is wrong" would have been an act of cowardice and evil.

Perhaps not as few as you believe. There are "freedom" indexes provided by international organizations. Which coutries do you list as equally free and open as the US? Is freedom only lack of limits, freedom from? What about freedom to - like freedom to get a good education regardless of your background?

Hmmm. I do actually have some points on this subject that I could make, but I am going to shelve them. As I said in my last post (to fable, just above), I don't want to get into arguments about whether Sweden or the US has a better government. They are both very good. Yes, I believe that both could be better, but it is not as vital an issue as getting my main point across: we must JUDGE. And I can't even get fable to see that China is a bad government, so I have a long way to go before I get around to Sweden versus the US!

Many people would argue that the US is one of the most unfair countries out of the Western democracies because of the class system and the lack of social security system. You can also check out the US violations of human rights at the Amnesty and HRW websites, and compare them to some other Western democracies.

Again, this is the same issue. I will say this, though: I LOVED Weasel's quote because it showed SO SO SO clearly how free the US is. All of these people are minority foreigners, and yet they came to the US and built a wonderful life. That speaks volumes. I know there is a lot of popular sentiment against the US, but we prove our record every day.

I'm not saying this to implicate the US is bad, I'm saying it because I think Lazarus is exaggregating the degree of how good it is compared to other nations or cultures.

I don't know if I am exaggerating, and I hope that you are not saying the US is bad. Personally, I think the US is the greatest nation on Earth - there I said it! Jump all over me

But, you know, fable would just say that that is my subjective view and we can never really know one way or another ... Again, I am begging you all: don't let subjectivity be a moral sanction of evil. We must speak out when we see wrong, and we must raise our voices in praise when we see good. This is the only way we will survive.

T'lainya · Post by **T'lainya** » Sun Oct 14, 2001 10:20 am

Official warning
@ at99..No personal attacks. You've been warned before. You can disagree with someone without calling them self deluded.

@ everyone..keep this civil...

Delacroix · Post by **Delacroix** » Sun Oct 14, 2001 10:34 am

@Lazarus
1)From where you are?(Contry)

You say we must judge what we think it is evil. You know that diferents points of view will point diferent things as evil. It futile to judge some other culture from the concepts of your own. It is obvious that you will call the most diferent culture as evil. Because the way that a totaly diferent culture live will contrast with your culture. Unless you don't judge any culture as evil or good.

As I understand of your words, you think that if we judge another culture and condem certain types of procedences, things like the atual world conflict will not happen again. Is this what you are saying?

reply please.

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Sun Oct 14, 2001 11:03 am

Originally posted by Ivan Cavallazzi:
@Lazarus
1)From where you are?(Contry)

You say we must judge what we think it is evil. You know that diferents points of view will point diferent things as evil. It futile to judge some other culture from the concepts of your own. It is obvious that you will call the most diferent culture as evil. Because the way that a totaly diferent culture live will contrast with your culture. Unless you don't judge any culture as evil or good.

As I understand of your words, you think that if we judge another culture and condem certain types of procedences, things like the atual world conflict will not happen again. Is this what you are saying?

reply please.

Ivan. I live in the United States. I hope you don't hold this against me. As I said in an earlier post: there is a lot of popular sentiment against the US, and I can neither explain it, nor understand it. It would be a great disservice to me, however, if my ideas were judged solely based on my physical location.

I think CE asked for my "definition" of evil, and maybe that is what you would like, too. I believe that HUMAN LIFE is the standard by which all moralities and governments must be judged. If a morality, or government, or way of life, or culture (or whatever you wish to call it) is injurous to human life, then it is evil, or bad, or whatever you wish to call it.

So, I have brought up a lot of very, very blatant examples of what I think are obviously evil - such as the Taliban, and China, and the Nazis. I really do not know how anyone can deny that these governments were/are evil.

It makes me a little sad that people today are so cautious of offending anyone, that they will not take a solid moral stand on anything.

Again, I beg all of you: do not let the idea of subjectivity be a sanction of evil.

And, no, I do NOT think that other cultures are bad just because they are different (as you accuse). I think other cultures are just great as long as they respect peoples individual rights.

Oh, and your last question: Well, I am not one of those people that say "there will always be evil" - I think that that is a poor view to take. But, on the other hand, I know that there is always the possibility of evil. So I don't know that accurately judging and condemning evil is all it will take to build a utopia, but here is the key: we will NEVER even come close to making a better world if we do not have the moral courage to condemn acts of evil, and take actions against them. Imagine a nation where the courts and the police simply decided one day: "well, I don't know, that guy that murdered his neighbor and beats his wife - he just has a different way of going about living. It's OK. I can't judge him." This is essentially what I hear many people on this board doing: avoiding any sort of moral stand on any issue. It's make me fear that the world will never change.

Your English is very good. I wish I knew another language as well as you do! I speak German only well enough to get by...

[ 10-14-2001: Message edited by: Lazarus ]
Edits just for spelling/grammar - no signifigantchange to content.

[ 10-14-2001: Message edited by: Lazarus ]

Delacroix · Post by **Delacroix** » Sun Oct 14, 2001 12:00 pm

Originally posted by Lazarus:

Ivan. I live in the United States. I hope you don't hold this against me. As I said in an earlier post: there is a lot of popular sentiment against the US, and I can neither explain it, nor understand it. It would be a great disservice to me, however, if my ideas were judged solely based on my physical location.

I'll never judge someone because of it's country. I just ask for know in what kind of rights you are with.

Posted by Lazarus.
And, no, I do NOT think that other cultures are bad just because they are different (as you accuse). I think other cultures are just great as long as they respect peoples individual rights.

What rights you are talking about. Humans Universal Rights? Constitution? Which?
PS: The Universal Declaration of Humam Rights have this name just because their creator wish this name. In fact it is not an universal humam rights, it is simply laws, conventions. I didn't sign it in the bottom.

Posted by Lazarus.
[]...but here is the key: we will NEVER even come close to making a better world if we do not have the moral courage to condemn acts of evil, and take actions against them.

This is the key I was looking for. "Taking actions against them." Take action agaisnt somethig you think is evil. Here, I think, is the real problem. I can say that all modern international conflict start from someone judging some other and making interference. Inside the mid-east the USA is know(of course, not for everybody in the mid-east) as the Big Satan. They consider USA as evil. If their military power were bigger than USA military power, and they wish to make interference against the Evil?
Here in Brazil there is no death sentence in the constitution. Personaly I am against death sentence(but I don't judge the country where exist the death sentence). If I were the president, and Brazil military power were bigger than USA, and I consider the death sentence as an evil act, and start to interfere in this evil country(USA)?
As we all know USA in the Cold War give support and weapons to Taleban face the evil URSS. USA put his finger(in fact USA put his full arm) in the Palestina-Israel question. And now(11, september) all the things turn agaist USA. All the interference USA make in other States are turnig back.

What I want to show you is that, in my opinion, the path to a better world is not judging another and make actions against what we consider evil. We can speak our opinions, offer asilum to people who are against their own country, break diplomatic relationship, but never interfere in other culture way of living.

And I hope you agree if me.

If today I, as a brazilian, have few restriction of the USA International policy, cerntainly is because the scars of a Militrary Dictator govern still in this Brazil.

Your English is very good. I wish I knew another language as well as you do! I speak German only well enough to get by...

Thanks

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Oct 14, 2001 3:48 pm

@Lazarus, I'm just going to focus on a few of the points you've touched upon in your last post to me. I've noticed a tendency in many discussions up here for the topics to expand into a whole galaxy of side issues, and this makes conversation very awkward, IMO, to maintain. If you want to focus on a particular point, please, feel free to bring it up again, here, or start a new topic, and I'll try to reply.

Lazarus writes:
(Parenthetically, I can't help but point out that everybody seems perfectly willing to judge and condemn the US, but entirely unwilling to judge or condemn any third world nation. Curious.)

I think this is because the US has a problem with admitting errors of judgement, which really can look bad when you're the largest kid on the block, living in the biggest house with all the best and newest toys. it really generates resentment. The US has never backed away from its embargos on Iraq, for example, despite the fact that the steps taken to limit Iraqi access to funding has demonstrably hit the Iraqi people much worse than its injured their leader. What began as a reasonable decision after the Gulf War has been mechanically followed through until it's become one of the worst diplomatic errors perpetrated by the US in the last half-century, IMO. It fosters an image of our government as a bunch of iron-fisted bullies ruthlessly picking on The Little Guy, and effectively creates a well of sympathy for a man who was nothing more than a mini-Stalin.

But the amazing thing about the US is that we have this government which is more responsive to the people than most other governments around the world, and we have the ability to CHANGE it when we decide that it is doing things wrong. Take the school segregation issue: it was wrong for people of color to be segregated, we (finally) came around to that point of view, and we changed. Do you think that such change is possible in China?

The history of the matter is that when the US decided racial segregation was wrong in schools, in jobs, and in voting, back in the mid-1860's, a law was based on the federal books requiring freedom and equality for blacks. Within ten years, one of the two main parties at the time, the Democrats, had formed a coalition with Southern regionalists creating a working majority that got these laws removed. This explains why for nearly 100 years, the South was solidly Democrat; why the Republicans couldn't take the Congress; and the use of the expression, "Yellog Dog Democrat" for Southerners, meaning "I'd rather vote in a yellow dog than a Republican."

Racial desegregation did not occur when the will of the people suddenly moved politicians; rather, black spokespersons literally invaded the voting booths, the schoools, and the job lines. Many were beaten, and a few were killed. Mass demonstrations amounting to hundreds of thousands of people marched on Washington DC, and at that point, some forward thinking Democrats decided this wasn't right, and effectively forged new coalitions.

They're political descendants are paying for it. The old Southerners who were Democratic at the time refused to jump party (for the most part) out of party patriotism, and just faded out in time. The new Southerners in Congress were almost Republican to a person.

From this, I arrive at what I think might be the following conclusions:

1) It took nearly 100 years to actually see through initial effects of racial desegregation in the United States.

2) The party that did it was rewarded eventually with the loss of Congress.

I was a bit too young to take national active part in the protests against racism at the time, though I was extremely passionate on the subject in my high school. My views did not sit well with many of my peers or teachers; and this was in the Northeast of the US, traditionally the more accepting of areas to new ideas. I have very vivid memories of the details of the movement, including the day Martin Luther King made his famous I Have a Dream speech; his death; and Bobby Kennedy's remarkable reaction to seeing how blacks were living in an Alabaman ghetto. (He literally changed from what he had been. He tried to answer a reporter's questions, but kept glancing back at the hut he'd visited, then glancing down, then stuttered, then glanced back at the hut...and at that moment, he joined the movement.) And I also remember George Wallace's rant about meeting protesters with guns, and a few black children killed by nameless thugs on the streets.

So no, this is not an example, IMO, of America reacting responsively on the big issues to major problems as outlined by its people. By and large, I think the tendency in the US is to maintain the status quo, and shift a few pieces around to make things look better...which is standard operation procedure for many governments, really.

For my reactions to China, see below.

I don't think I got annoyed. Really. I am trying to be very even in my responses. I guess I do get a bit strident at times, but it is because IDEAS MATTER TO ME! Maybe you and some others here (maybe, I don't know, and I'm not accusing), but maybe you just think this is all mental gymnastics, and no one can ever really be right or wrong or good or bad, but I believe that ideas can change this world, and I fervently wish to see good ideas promoted and bad ideas discussed until they are found out.

I think that a little deeper reading of this forum would show just how many of us who refuse to judge lightly, nevertheless are very passionately committed to a variety of causes. This doesn't mean we necessarily see the world around us in terms of black and white, good and bad, but only that we accept the admirable quality of a given idea, and strive to follow it through, ourselves, in our daily lives.

Thus, I have always been convinced that all people from all racial, ethnic, cultural and religious backgrounds are equal, and that we have much to learn from the disagreement of views. I have followed this idea through quietly throughout my life. My friendships have been diverse, from Christian fundamentalists to Wiccans to Buddhist refugees from China. My more intimate relationships have been similar, and I was engaged for a couple of years to a very fine young black lady down in Dallas, Texas; but her parents objected to her moving (Southern black families in particular are extremely close), and the engagement was broken. As for job discrimination--when I worked as a Program Director for the new public radio station in Gainesville, Florida, at its university, our dean, a very powerful and assertive figure, demanded that we remove all foreign students from on-air positions, since the sound wasn't sufficiently professional, in his opinion. I refused. Fortunately, nothing came of my refusal, since several of the students (notably from Belgium, India, France, and several Scandanavian countries) had powerful families that and backing from the International Club; but the fact remains that I stood up in a quiet way for what I believed.

Mind, I never thought the Dean was evil, or even bad. He was simply expressing certain views according to facets in his personality. He was working for the best of the radio station. I could see this, even though I disagreed with him.

In any case, my roundabout point is that refusing to see things in black and white terms hasn't meant I simply see ideas as intellectual games. It does let me appreciate the flow and intricacy of ideas I don't write off automatically, I think, and gain insights into character. But that's just my personal opinion.

OMG! You can't even bring yourself to say that CHINA has a bad government? Fable, I am begging you, you can't mean this?! This is a government that has no respect for the lives of it's people. Did you not see Tianamen? Have you never heard of Tibet? Please, please, Fable, you must explain what "good" you can find in this way of ruling a people.

On Tianamen, Tibet, the Falun Gong, the forced labor camps for dissidents, etc, I regard these as terrible mistakes, costly in human lives and misery. I remind others of these facts where it's reasonable to do so, and I've made a point over the years of buying products in stores that contribute to Tibetan relief groups in Nepal, rather than pay less in department stores for the same items. I've picketed the UN, and I've written pieces about China's actions.

But though I may condemn both individual actions of China and certain consistent views of the Chinese government, that doesn't mean I condemn that government itself, or regard as somehow morally bad. In fact, compared to its predecessor back in the 1940s and earlier, the Maoists were angels. In their zeal, they labelled everything that preceded themselves as "bad," and in throwing it all out, refused to keep what was good from the degenerate end of a once thriving and multi-layered culture. They did away with a hell out of a lot of corruption at all levels, and they did raise standards of living, education and health care significantly.

As to human rights--remember, this is a relatively recent concept in the world, and owes a lot in its acceptance in the West to economic security and largely stable, homogeneous population bases. It's much easier to support fair wages, for example, when you're one of the top ten producing nations in the world. It's easier, too, to support human rights for all cultures when, like Norway, you don't have to worry about Afghanistan's mixture of six major and nine minor cultural groups, all living in close promixity to one another.

This doesn't mean the notion of human rights is wrong. It only means we need to understand our own backgrounds, and those of others who disagree, sometimes violently, like China. I won't condemn China's government, knowing the pressures it lives with and where it comes from, or its accomplishments. I will work against some of its actions that I deplore, but others may feel differently; and I have to accept that, knowing how limited the perceptions of any single person is, in evaluating so large a place as a teacup, much less a world.

Gods, this stupid reply is *still* too long. And here I thought I was going to get better by focusing.

[ 10-15-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

ThorinOakensfield · Post by **ThorinOakensfield** » Sun Oct 14, 2001 5:24 pm

Originally posted by at99:


I dont intend to insult anyone personally.
So if you want to continue please start with the above questions in a new topic.

Kind of late for that, isn't it?
I'm already insulted you prejudice...
Like i've said earlier, different reigions of the world have different times of prosperity. The ME was doing good, while Europe was in its Middle Ages. Now Europe is dominant, and ME is not as much.
India and China had been civilizations for thousands of years and quite rich, yet into the later part of the previous mellenium they collapsed. They got conquered.
The African nations were quite rich traders. Even though they were mostly tribes, they were happy. Then they were conqured and torn apart by the Europeans. So they aren't doing too well anymore.
Like fable has said, you could call the Palestian freedom fighters good because they want to make a nation-state of their own.
The so called good Israelies have killed hundreds of Palestinians. The violence restarted 1 or 2 years ago(?), when Sharon IIRC visited a holy site to both Jews and Muslims. THat started the violence that conitues till these days. Sharon probably knew what would happen, yet he still went.

Lazurus- Now the Israelies just killed a suspected Palestinian for the disco bombing a few months ago.
They killed him!
What idiots. The US told them not to do something like that cuz the Muslim nation may react, yet these fools did so.
And each time there is some Palestinian attack(not sucicide bombing) the Isralies react by bombing whole neighborhoods, with war helicopters, yet nobody cares.
So the Israelis are evil.
I guess i can say that because they don't follow my viewpoints.
@Lazarus- Sure China had Tianamen and Tibet problems and killings, which were both quite horrible.
But then the US screwed up Vietnam and Korea and 2 extremley pointless wars.
So they didn't kill too many Americans. Is that the reason those two events aren't bad.

You can call China evil for not following your views, China can call you evil for not following their viewpoints.
It goes either way.

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Sun Oct 14, 2001 6:20 pm

Once more unto the breach, dear friends...

Well, it seems I have certainly got a few replies to get around to. However, I do not have the time right now. And I don't know that I will have time again until next weekend. If you will all be patient, I will respond to each of you in turn.

I'm sure you can hardly wait

Hekate · Post by **Hekate** » Sun Oct 14, 2001 6:35 pm

Why is everyone so afraid to be judgemental? And what is wrong with being judgemental? Some such people might call themselves discerning. And having discerning taste is good, right?

As far as judging another government goes, I am with Lazarus. If a government is not founded on the rights of the individual citizen, it is not a just form of rule.

If you disagree with me, I ask you this. If you had the choice in your next life to come back as a female born into a country ruled by the Taliban government would you take it? Would you consciously choose to be born in communist China? If you would not choose these things than you have already judged these governments.

I am not talking about judging individuals. I do that only after having engaged them in dialogue.

I am not talking about judging people's cultures. I do that after eating their food and listening to their music.

NCT · Post by **NCT** » Mon Oct 15, 2001 1:33 am

@SOME OF THE PEOPLE HERE:Hold your horses,we are doing somebody else's work by entering in discussions like these,especially after facts that Weasel and others have taken the time to dig up.
@99.I have gathered a wealth of profiling stimuli from you and...words escape me.

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Mon Oct 15, 2001 8:29 pm

Hmmmm... I had every intention of waiting until this weekend to respond to each of these posts, but now I am a little scared

I just watched a pretty nasty flame war between Sailor Saturn and (pretty much) the rest of the board, and I really could see no good reason for the ridicule she got.

I only mention this because I don't want to be accused of being an unpleasant presence on this board. I really have tried to keep my arguments very calm, but maybe that is not enough.

I guess what I am saying is this: I have at least three people to respond to (Ivan, Thorin, and Fable). If you all would like to continue this discussion, I would very much like to as well; but if you feel I am somehow being disruptive or disrespectful, I will no longer post on this subject.

Let me know. If nothing else, you can PM me, and we can talk privately.

Hi, Hekate! Thanks for the support! I think your question is an excellent one. Anyone care to answer it?

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Oct 15, 2001 9:22 pm

@Lazarus, I can't speak for anybody else, but for myself, I've never had any problem with your posts. You've flamed no one, and always acted in a cooperative, considerate manner, so don't worry. Have you seen anything in my last post to you which indicates annoyance on my part?

[ 10-15-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

Delacroix · Post by **Delacroix** » Mon Oct 15, 2001 11:55 pm

Originally posted by Lazarus:

I only mention this because I don't want to be accused of being an unpleasant presence on this board

Don't worry about my side, you are not unpleasant presence in anyway, in fact you are a very interesting one. Change ideas with someone that have a totally diferent opinion is awesome.

Posted by Lazarus.
I really have tried to keep my arguments very calm, but maybe that is not enough.

I agree with you in this one. It is not enough. How long someone can stay calm, if every member is posting against him, if everyone is analising his words and showing his little mistake; everybody commit little mistakes; but his mistake is exposed, amplified, quoted, and reapeted again. Too much pression lead someone crazy. Probably if it happens to me I'll loose my calm imediatly.

As I said, don't worry about my side. Hope you don't feel pressionated to awnser. If you wish, you can respond my questions and observations in PM, to avoid lurkers replys.

Posted by Lazarus.
I guess what I am saying is this: I have at least three people to respond to (Ivan, Thorin, and Fable). If you all would like to continue this discussion, I would very much like to as well; but if you feel I am somehow being disruptive or disrespectful, I will no longer post on this subject.

Thanks for include me.
I'm waiting your replys, Lazarus, as a child wait for Santa Claus.[there must be a word to to say how a child wait for Santa Claus, but I don't know it, so I write this horror].