On Feb 6, 2008, at 11:14 AM, Stefano Mori wrote: > The point is that what's propaganda to you may be what's true to > Republicans. > > I can read a Republican politician's own statements, made through > their own Republican sources, web sites, etc. and see for myself > whether their Republican worldview, as expressed through their own > Republican policies, matches mine. I can get that directly from them, > I don't need to read anything that any of his or her opponents say > about him or her. > > I can look at Bush and get the impression that he "hates" the UN. He > doesn't have to use those words, but that's how his policies are > perceived by me, for in my worldview there is more to the world than > just the USA. > > The policies and worldview of one side can, even when perceived > accurately and correctly, still be abhorrent to the other side.
This is such an extreme form of subjectivism that it is hard to know how to respond. On can indeed note that Bush chose as his ambassador to the UN someone who had advocated for its abolition and from this and can reasonably conclude that Bush has contempt for the UN. Their simply isn't any evidence that 'Democrats hate America', Chuck's evidence that some individuals may happen to be Democrats and hate President Bush notwithstanding. One of the major problems with the Integralist notion that differing opinions are all true in some sense, is that it doesn't deal well with the fact that both liars and insane people express opinions. In attempting to integrate everything, the Integralists integrate a lot of crap. I think that's what David was getting at. -- Vegetarians eat Vegetables, Humanitarians frighten me _______________________________________________ OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters Join us in #ramblingwaffles on irc.23x.net
