At 01:05 PM 5/26/01 +1200 K.Feete wrote:
>>> Why don't I just watch his movies? You know, the B-grade flicks?
>>
>>Kat, that sort of comment is why it's very hard for me to even discuss
>>these things with you.
>
>Er, really? Sorry. No more jokes from now on. <serious face>
I think the point, Kat, is that jokes are fine - so long as you also have
serious arguments.
Here has been the structure of our debates with you so far:
1) You make some biting remark about Reagan, America, etc.
2) Myself, Gautam, or someone else posts a reasoned disagreement with your
arguments.
3) You come back and say: "wait a second, you can't argue against that -
it was only a joke". (*)
4) We replay, "so then, that means you really do agree with us, right?"
5) You return, "No, I really do think all those things."
6) But........ what?
I'm sorry Kat - but that style of debate is neither fun, nor productive. I
think we can all appreciate the good zinger, Kat - heaven knows I've
launched a bunch of them myself - but we don't appreciate hiding behind
them.
(*) - Alternatively, you may reply: "well, I really don't know what I am
talking about - I was just trying to generate some facts." The same
principle applies.
But enough on that....... let's get some examples.
>First, it was a joke. .....
>
>Second, the comment was flippant; I know. It wasn't intended to offend
>you. It was intended to kind of tick you all off, okay, and also maybe
>remind you of a body of Reagan's work that you didn't want to remember
>about.
So, let's test our theory - you admit that we are right, then, about
Reagan? Or at least you admit that there is a strong possibility that we
are right?
> FYI, I looked for the book JDG referenced and it ain't here- the
>Kiwi public library system seems to have thought it unimportant-
It was also just released a few months ago, I'm sure a lot of libraries
don't have it yet.
>Third, I doubt I'm the only one around here uninterested in having their
>perceptions challenged.
Actually, I am here *because* I enjoy having my perceptions challenged.
Most of the time, I can count on my ideas here being treated like the cow
dropped into the Velociraptor pit in Jurassic Park. Ok, you guys are a
lot more intelligent and a little more friendly than the 'Raptors..... ;-)
More directly, I also read "The New Republic" each week, and Slate.com
every day so that I can keep up on what the liberals are thinking. I have
a friend at work who sends me the highlights from Salon.com and "The
Nation" regularly.
>And I do know that the
>French were some of the worst and most oppressive colonizers in history.
Actually, the title of most oppressive colonizers in history is generally
assigned to the Belgians - or more specifically, King Leopold II.
>I *don't* know whether or not they were worse than the Soviets, but I
>didn't *say* that, did I?
Actually, you did. You argued that we cannot assert that opposition to the
Soviets was necessary, without arguing that opposition to the French was
necessary.
>>The French were unpleasant, yes. Pol Pot
>>killed _2 million_ of his own citizens in Cambodia. The French never
>>even approached the level of depravity that he showed. Do you
>>understand that there's a difference there, and it's not a small one?
>
>What's your numbers for the folks killed under the French? Can I see
>them, just to rectify my own horrible ignorance and get a frame of
>reference here?
Well, I haven't yet heard anyone refer to French Indochina as "The Killing
Fields." I did quite a bit of net searching, but unfortunately could not
find anyone who had compiled a number - either for the French in Indochina
or colonialism in general.
>I never said Communism wasn't bad. I said we'd paid a heavy price for
>beating Communism back, and *asked* if it had really been worth it. See
>my other post to see my opinions on that one. Nor did I say it wasn't
>worse than the other options. I pointed out- or, to be more precise here-
>what I was *trying* to point out was that the evil of communism might
>have been exaggerated since many of the countries that tried to adopt it
>were already in times of major chaos.
In the case of Eastern Europe, this seems patently false. All of the
countries occupied by the Allies became thriving democracies. I see no
reason why this could not have been true for Poland, Hungary, and Romania,
etc. In the case of Russia and Grenada, communists overthrew a fledgling
a democracy.
>As for evidence- well, I already asked for actual figures on the deaths
>under the colonial system. But, Gautam, this isn't a right-or-wrong
>question. It's a discussion of opinion, backed up on occasion by facts. I
>don't think there *is* a right answer, and if there's no right answer,
>there's no concrete, indisputable evidence that you can provide me to
>make me "wrong."
That's where I disagree. There is a right answer. The USSR was Evil. The
USA is a net agent of good in the world. Eventually you'll come around, I
think - because its the truth.
JDG
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
"Compassionate conservatism is the way to reconcile the two most vital
conservative intellectual traditions: libertarianism and Catholic social
thought."
-Michael Gerson, advisor to George W. Bush
