Sorry - Kyle is doing such a good job that I hate to interrupt... But I see
the use of the word "outrage" once again.
The word "outrage" is probably one of the most prolific words in use these
days, and frankly, I'm tired of it. If you (I assume), Kyle (permit me) or
myself have a bone to pick (as I did with Ed yesterday and today) I may get
somewhat upset and perhaps a little testy, usually for a good, definable
reason. And often with a reasoned discussion this can be put to bed, as
long as the debaters are fundamentally honest about what they say and why
they say it.
But, speaking for myself and perhaps Kyle (permit me again) I don't get
"outraged". It would have to be something horrific and viscerally
meaningful for me to register "outrage".
But - believe it or not - there's a group of people in this world; about
1.5 billion of them - who seem to have the ability to get outraged
literally at the drop of a hat. That's an extremely short fuse. Something
we see in young children mostly. And we easily buy into it.
It's pure hyperbole where communication is concerned and it borders on
pathological where human reaction is concerned. Could you please avoid
using it in any reasoned context?
P.
At 02:12 PM 8/13/2006 -0700, you wrote:
Kyle,
You can accuse me of not reading your previous post as thoroughly as you
wish I had done. Perhaps there is some truth to that.
So, you are a practical no-nonsense type of guy. I'm drawn to the
following no-nonsense comments:
> If you feel it will be productive to get in touch with
> these people any try to understand them, please feel
> free to do so, I would not restrict your actions in
> this regard, that would be wrong of me. However,
> while you are doing this, I will support those who
> feel the solution is to use force (see postscript) to
> solve the problem more elegantly and completely.
> Sorry, but I am completely uninterested in why they
> transformed their minds to be this way: they are,
> and that is it. There is no going back.
"...solve the problem more elegantly and completely" The ultimate
solution? Hasn't that been tried before?
> If you want
> to transform minds, then perhaps consider
> Americanizing them. Maybe that sounds
> imperialist/colonialist/insert-anti-American-
> term-of-the-day-here. I do not care.
I doubt such efforts will create many converts.
> I do not want
> to understand the enemy. I want to destroy him.
> Maybe many do not agree with these statements, but
> I don't mince words, I will give you what I
> think honestly and from the heart.
There is a perverse kind of honor in stabbing someone in the front, as
compared to the back.
I gather you don't want to understand the enemy. You want to destroy them.
Well, I would agree with you on one point, that such an attitude is, in
your own words "...very simple: us or them." When any group, society, or
nation manages to distill complicated issues, such as who rightfully owns
a disputed patch of land, there's no stopping the kind of carnage that
will unfold, especially when both sides can prop up their sense of outrage
with some religious justification.
You mentioned previously that you happen to believe that "...we are right,
and they are wrong, and that that is that." How brave is it to proclaim
one's righteousness when it would appear that it's our side that is
holding most of the ammo? He who is "right" is simply the individual who
has more guns and ammo. If that's the case we had better wipe out every
single "enemy" from the face of the planet, and while we're at it we'd
better not concern ourselves with all the collateral damage, all the
innocent men, women, and children caught in harms way. Cuz, if we fail to
wipe out all the "enemy" (along with a few here and there we're not too
sure about) from the face of the planet we'll just end up pissing them off
even more.
> How do you plan to educate them better if
> they don't want it?
One can't educate those who don't want it. One hopes to better educate the
majority - the rest of the population who are willing to better
themselves, those who would prefer to live in more peaceful circumstances
where they can go to work and raise their children. Hopefully, it will be
the better educated majority who will be able to ameliorate the rest who
don't wish to be educated.
Regarding your postscript, I would agree that the rules are likely to
change when we can finally kick ourselves off our current addiction to
oil. Let's hope that is sooner rather than later.
And, yes, I also agree that Walter Mathau. was a brilliant and very
pragmatic character in Fail-Safe. A no-nonsense kind of guy. I can
appreciate where you're coming from. It's obvious I don't personally agree
with much of your sentiments. But I do understand it.
Nice sparring with you.
Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.Zazzle.com/orionworks
