Good evening again, Tim!
Tim Bedding wrote to Frank Reichert...
I previously wrote to you:
> > I love it when individuals keep an open mind.
To which, you replied:
> You do not seem very open about the possibility that you might
> be wrong. Why is this?
Hey look! I didn't say that at all. You just did, however, didn't you?
I also previously wrote:
> > Anyway, whatever theories exist on the Documentary didn't
> > originate with me, since the Documentary isn't mine -- it
> > was produced by Alex Jones.
And again, you replied:
> There is open and there is gaping.
You haven't obviously even seen the Documentary, that was NOT produced
by me, have you? At least you haven't acknowledged doing so here. So
you above makes absolutely no sense to me at all about 'open' or
'gaping', since your knowledge concerning the commentary is zilch, as
I understand it anyway.
> If someone wants to say Bush was responsible for lots of
> bad stuff, he is free to do so. Others are equally free to
> discount it.
No doubt about it. So?
> In politics as well as science, I believe we have to set
> certain standards otherwise we end up endorsing all sorts
> of contradictory nonsense.
Politics is not a precise science, at least as I recall. Political
theory is rather subjective and largely depends upon the expectations
and the social orientation of each individual, hardly a precise
science in terms of verification principles. More often, political
theory is a product of philosophy, which is hardly in itself, an
exacting measure either for empirical verification except perhaps as
history unfolds. And HISTORY! You got it, that depends almost
entirely upon who the winning side is, and what focus history is
described in!
You walked into this trap Tim, and by your own design. You confuse
the notion that hard core evidence exists to verify human
philosophical tenants by attempting to suggest that such can be
derived by pure empirical evidence as if such could be decided as such
on empirical grounds. It can't obviously. To arrive at such a
premise, you have to discard the idea that metaphysical notions held
by cultures, religions, and societies don't exist within such cultures
at all. That is likely the cause of confusion that exists when
Americans today 'Heil the Shrub' fascist regime for supporting
American idealism opposed to the 'rag heads' that comprise the Islamic
world! You can't understand it, and you can't explain it either, can
you?
Okay. I understand you have 'standards' as you just mentioned above.
What if no one else on this planet accepts 'your standards'? What if
some of 'em might look for an opportunity to kidnap you, haul you
away, and decapitate your head because they don't like or accept
'your' standards for the way they choose to live in a society of their
own making. By the way, in terms of world-wide Islam, by the last
count anyway, they make up 1/3rd of this planet!
So, in speaking of your 'standards', maybe they don't mean a hell of a
lot to anyone outside of your own sphere of influence.
As an American, I might find a great deal of problems with YOUR
standards regarding my political philosophy, and how best to work in a
fashion to make that not only visible, but perhaps dominant within the
American culture. True, that's getting harder and harder to do these
days, but the case is still a valid one. This is why political
science isn't a valid hard science as you seem to suggest ought to
exist. It doesn't. Your standards, are simply put, 'your standards'
and yours alone, along with those who may choose to sign on to such.
> Take JFK the movie by Oliver Stone. Should we watch it
> and just assuming that Lee Harvey Oswald was not responsible
> for the death? There must have been a second shooter?
Don't know. Perhaps the jury is still out on that one, and even
perhaps we'll never know the entire truth. But, I hope you aren't
trying to suggest that I shouldn't watch and try to ascertain the
validity of the contents of the movie!
> Perhaps that is what you might do.
I believe the paradime here is a rather simple one actually. If you
aren't informed insofar as the contents of a particular message, then
you are certainly not qualified to render a verdict upon its
validity. I doubt seriously if YOU have ever even taken the time to
review the "911 The Road to Tyranny" video that is promulgated in the
underground alternative news venues, then you are hardly qualified to
render any verdict whatsoever insofar as its possible or intended
validity. It's that simple. You don't know the facts, and you don't
care to know the facts, and you aren't even willing to investigate any
further than your own closed mindset.
I'll give Robert Goodman some credit here. I guess, he and I both had
some questions about Roger Moore's politics. I agree. Thing is, I have
seen a lot of folks over a long period of time who have matured a lot,
come out of the closet, and admitted they were wrong. John Stossel,
as I mentioned in the previous post tonight, is just ONE of those
people.
Not sure where Roger Moore will be in the decades hence either, so
can't honestly speculate upon any of that here.
The thing I most respect about any individual, is their willingness to
be sceptical, to question, and to form their own lives around hard
evidence in such a way that they mature in their own right. You
however seem entrenched in your own selective and subjectivist
standards and refuse to translate other information that may be
contrary to your own opinion. You certainly have that right. You are
not however the final authority in making such a determination, or
even a part of that process, if you fail to examine the information
such as it is when such information becomes available.
In my own lifetime, I've admitted when I have been wrong. I've
changed over the course of my own life.
> Others have learned to be more cautious. People are human.
> They sometimes get pleasure out of simply believing in something,
> in believing that they are part of the elect, the elite who
> know something many do not.
I'm not sure where you might be going with any of this, so I don't
have anything much to add to, or respond to, here. I believe the
context of this discussion was circumstantial to actual informative
information pertaining to the Movie Review I provided last night,
which was only given within the context of informative data in a Video
Commentary of events. You apparently haven't seen it, and likely, you
don't care to see it. So your note above, to caution, might be
questionable, since this seems to suggest you'd rather bury your own
head in the sand, than even contemplate the data put forth in the
Documentary.
You know what Tim, you have personified a great deal what it means to
the old adage, to keep an open mind.
> In such circumstances, those people are not necessarily
> going to think through the issues critically.
Or, perhaps, those who refuse to examine information and grow and
mature in some fashion, are the ones who will unfortunately never have
the opportunity to sift through various issues on a critically based
platform to ever know or understand some of the hard realities that
face even individual preconceived premises.
Hope you are not one of 'em.
Kindest regards,
Frank
--
_____________________________________________________________________
LIBERTY NORTHWEST CONFERENCE & NEWSGROUP
"The only libertarian-oriented political discussion conference on
the Fidonet Z1 Backbone..." Fidonet SysOps AREAFIX: LIB_NW
To subscribe or unsubscribe: http://www.liberty-northwest.org/
Liberty Northwest Home Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
Admin matters: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...Liberty is never an option... only a condition to be lost
_____________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Libnw mailing list
Libnw@immosys.com
List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw
Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
