On Sunday, December 16, 2012 2:47:54 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
> On 12/16/2012 1:42 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> On 12/15/2012 10:20 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
> I guess preventing women from learning to read is good in Afghanistan,
> even though it's bad here. So it's rational when you agree with the
> conclusion and rationalization when you don't.
> No, it is not! Where are people in power in the US preventing women
> from learning to read in the US? What "Power" is needs to be precisely
> defined. Arguments from unreal hypotheticals are always fallacious.
> What hypothetical?? Women ARE prevented from learning to read in
> Afghanistan and we DO think it would be a bad thing to keep women from
> learning to read here.
> Is the average US citizen the cause of the actions of the average
> Teleban member in Afghanistan? What is the relation between some activity
> in Afghanistan and in "somewhere we are". This is an equivocation, thus a
> rubbish argument.
Eh, there is a direct relation. After WW.II, The US and other world powers
have been playing Chess with the Third World. Toppling democracies,
installing puppet regimes. That's pretty much the CIAs function. The actual
history is interesting.. the Oliver Stone series on Showtime right now is
pretty informative. Why were we messing with the governments if Iran,
Guatemala, Indonesia, Vietnam, Congo, Afghanistan? Why did the average
citizens of those countries pose a threat to the oil companies and
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at