John D. Giorgis wrote:
>I think the point, Kat, is that jokes are fine - so long as you also have
>serious arguments.
I do. They're based on opinion and observation, not numbers and solid
facts, but I consider them fairly serious nonetheless.
But not *too* serious. It's unwise to take oneself too seriously.
>
>Here has been the structure of our debates with you so far:
<snip>
Rather than refute this, let me just give the structure of this debate
from *my* side and see where we're not seeing eye to eye.
1) I make an offhand comment ("we *are* pretty damn arrogant and we don't
seem to have a lot of reason for it") ask a question ("Was communism
worth *that* cost?") or make a remark pretty clearly not meant to be
taken seriously ("Why don't I just watch his movies? You know, the
B-grade flicks?") Admittedly, these are meant to be inflammatory.
2) You flame me, usually with propaganda about how great America is.
3) I respond to the flame, as reasonably as possible (which, with me, may
not be all that reasonably) pointing out flaws in your argument and what
I consider major omissions.
4) You become a terms lawyer, picking holes in my arguement by reason of
the terms I was using (ie reason vs. justification), and fail to respond
to what I actually say.
5) I try to clarify my original position.
6) You claim that I am then agreeing with you and demand an apology for
the things you said I said.
7) I don't apologize, but explain why. Since you've been saying all along
that I am fighting with no facts (true) I actually make an effort to dig
some up and use them to back up my arguements.
8) You fail to reply to any of this. Instead, you pull the flippant
comments I made out of context and flame me some more on them.
9) You send a long post about my bad posting habits which shows yourself
as the epitomy of reason and good and myself as a misguided child who
can't be trusted to respond maturely to a simple debate.
Hmmm. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Any more neutral
parties care to comment? <grin>
>>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?
I will admit I know next to nothing about Reagan; I thought I had already
admitted that. I will say that most of what I've *heard* of Reagan, from
my parents and their friends, has been contemptous and negative, and that
the little I know about him from history courses and environmental
science classes has also pointed towards a set of policies that I
strongly dislike and that certainly don't seem to be very intelligent.
But I honestly don't know much about the guy. I hereby apologize if my
feeble jokes have given the impression that I know what I'm talking about
or if I've offended you Reagan fans.
>>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..... ;-)
Thanks- I think <grin>. Let me change "challenged" to "changed" then.
>>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 said "some of". The Belgians were truly terrible, whereas the French
were merely terrible. So were we, come to think of it, if you count
taking America from the natives as "colonizing," which I would.
>>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.
Er, now I'm confused... let me try and clarify what I'm trying to say. In
the message you're referring to you argued that communism *had* to be
stopped because of all the atrocities that were committed under
communism, and that America, being the bright, good, and entirely
beautiful place that it was, stepped up to stop it. I was trying to argue
in return that colonialism also committed a great deal of atrocities-
whether as great or lesser, I don't know, because as you mention later
there's no reliable figures- but that our bright, good, and entirely
beautiful nation was willing to turn a blind eye to *those* nastinesses-
suggesting that maybe it isn't all that bright and good after all, and
that maybe the fight against communism, evil as it was, was motivated
more by self-interest than you seem to suggest. It's entirely possible
that this is not what it sounded like I was saying, or that this was not
what you were trying to tell me. If so, I apologize.
>>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.
I don't know much about Eastern Europe, but I'm sure this is all true.
Communism was undoubtably a force for evil in Eastern Europe. This was
not, however, where America did most of its fighting or most of its
damage. That was done in the so-called Third World, which, as I
mentioned, was already suffering- and, frankly, which didn't get much joy
from the American occupation.
>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.
In another message you argued that no good can come from evil and
suggested that therefore the title of "evil" should be carefully applied.
May I recommend you take your own advice? By these lights the USSR's help
defeating Nazi Germany must have been "evil". I admit that the USSR did
more harm than good to the world at large, but I hesitate to stick them
with the label of evil, if nothing else because we're talking about such
a *big* place- both in time and in space.
And, if the label of absolute evil should be applied with care, so should
the label of absolute good. The US has done a lot of good things. The US
has done a lot of bad things.
As far as them being a force of net good in the world- I would, with much
hemming and hawing and "but," and "don't forget" -ing, agree that we
*have been* a force of net good. I wonder very much if we are now.
America seems, to me at least, to be foundering; dying under the weight
of its own greatness, boasting from the top of the dungheap. We have been
great. We're loosing it- morally in particular. I consider it my duty, as
an American, to point this out whenever I can. Maybe I do sound to
negative- maybe I *am* too negative- but the good thing about being a
pessimist is you're always pleasantly surprised. <grin>
The other good thing about being a pessimist is, of course, that you're
frightened enough to work hard to *stop* the evil you believe is coming
to pass- if you're a productive pessimist, you do; I have no truck with
the other lot.
The thing that frightens me about you, JDG, is that you seem to believe
that America has been a force of good- and therefore will, by some magic,
*continue* to be a force of net good. This is one of the reasons I try to
point out our historical mistakes. We've been Bad before, and we'll be
Bad again, and I would argue that that is the direction we're sliding in
now.
Kat Feete
----------
You could say I lost my faith in the politicians
They all looked like game-show hosts to me....
--The Police
