Re: Permission Slips
On 4/29/05, Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Apr 28, 2005, at 7:43 PM, JDG wrote: > > > The Bush Administration used the child/permission slip analogy to make > > this > > *latter* viewpoint, that the US must gain the *permission* of the UN > > Security Council before activing, appear repulsive and appear to be > > reducing our great nation to childishness. > > Dunno about our great nation, but obviously our citizenry has sunk to > that level. > > Would you [plural] mind finding a different horse to flog? This one's > dead. And while you're [singular] at it consider dropping the pompous > tone as well. It's obnoxious. > > -- > Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books And while we are giving unsolicited advice, could y'all (plural) remember to trim subjects? When it is that long, start trimming. ~Maru Taking own advice ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips
From: Maru Dubshinki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Permission Slips Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 16:57:32 -0400 On 4/29/05, Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Apr 28, 2005, at 7:43 PM, JDG wrote: > > > The Bush Administration used the child/permission slip analogy to make > > this > > *latter* viewpoint, that the US must gain the *permission* of the UN > > Security Council before activing, appear repulsive and appear to be > > reducing our great nation to childishness. > > Dunno about our great nation, but obviously our citizenry has sunk to > that level. > > Would you [plural] mind finding a different horse to flog? This one's > dead. And while you're [singular] at it consider dropping the pompous > tone as well. It's obnoxious. > > -- > Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books And while we are giving unsolicited advice, could y'all (plural) remember to trim subjects? When it is that long, start trimming. But what if that feeling of annoyance is singular to you? -Travis _ Don't just Search. Find! http://search.sympatico.msn.ca/default.aspx The new MSN Search! Check it out! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, Travis Edmunds wrote: > > >From: Maru Dubshinki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion > >To: Killer Bs Discussion > >Subject: Re: Permission Slips > >Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 16:57:32 -0400 > > > >On 4/29/05, Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Apr 28, 2005, at 7:43 PM, JDG wrote: > > > > > > > The Bush Administration used the child/permission slip analogy to make > > > > this > > > > *latter* viewpoint, that the US must gain the *permission* of the UN > > > > Security Council before activing, appear repulsive and appear to be > > > > reducing our great nation to childishness. > > > > > > Dunno about our great nation, but obviously our citizenry has sunk to > > > that level. > > > > > > Would you [plural] mind finding a different horse to flog? This one's > > > dead. And while you're [singular] at it consider dropping the pompous > > > tone as well. It's obnoxious. > > > > > > -- > > > Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books > > > >And while we are giving unsolicited advice, could y'all (plural) remember > >to > >trim > >subjects? When it is that long, start trimming. > > But what if that feeling of annoyance is singular to you? It's not. Trust me on that one. (Not that it's enough of a peeve for me to actually *say* anything on my own, but it's enough of one for me to defend the idea.) Just my $0.02, Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips
From: Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Permission Slips Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 17:58:59 -0500 (CDT) On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, Travis Edmunds wrote: > > >From: Maru Dubshinki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion > >To: Killer Bs Discussion > >Subject: Re: Permission Slips > >Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 16:57:32 -0400 > > > >On 4/29/05, Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Apr 28, 2005, at 7:43 PM, JDG wrote: > > > > > > > The Bush Administration used the child/permission slip analogy to make > > > > this > > > > *latter* viewpoint, that the US must gain the *permission* of the UN > > > > Security Council before activing, appear repulsive and appear to be > > > > reducing our great nation to childishness. > > > > > > Dunno about our great nation, but obviously our citizenry has sunk to > > > that level. > > > > > > Would you [plural] mind finding a different horse to flog? This one's > > > dead. And while you're [singular] at it consider dropping the pompous > > > tone as well. It's obnoxious. > > > > > > -- > > > Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books > > > >And while we are giving unsolicited advice, could y'all (plural) remember > >to > >trim > >subjects? When it is that long, start trimming. > > But what if that feeling of annoyance is singular to you? It's not. Trust me on that one. (Not that it's enough of a peeve for me to actually *say* anything on my own, but it's enough of one for me to defend the idea.) Well, I just wanted to an excuse to use, "singular." -Travis _ Take charge with a pop-up guard built on patented Microsoft® SmartScreen Technology. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips
On 4/29/05, Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, Travis Edmunds wrote: > > >From: Maru Dubshinki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion > > >To: Killer Bs Discussion > > >Subject: Re: Permission Slips > > >Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 16:57:32 -0400 > > > > > >On 4/29/05, Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Apr 28, 2005, at 7:43 PM, JDG wrote: > > > > > > > > > The Bush Administration used the child/permission slip analogy to > make > > > > > this > > > > > *latter* viewpoint, that the US must gain the *permission* of the > UN > > > > > Security Council before activing, appear repulsive and appear to > be > > > > > reducing our great nation to childishness. > > > > > > > > Dunno about our great nation, but obviously our citizenry has sunk > to > > > > that level. > > > > > > > > Would you [plural] mind finding a different horse to flog? This > one's > > > > dead. And while you're [singular] at it consider dropping the > pompous > > > > tone as well. It's obnoxious. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books > > > > > >And while we are giving unsolicited advice, could y'all (plural) > remember > > >to > > >trim > > >subjects? When it is that long, start trimming. > > > > But what if that feeling of annoyance is singular to you? > > It's not. Trust me on that one. > > (Not that it's enough of a peeve for me to actually *say* anything on my > own, but it's enough of one for me to defend the idea.) > > Just my $0.02, > > Julia > Ah! Noble lady, I shall not forget your aid this day! ~Maru Le Morte d'what? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips
- Original Message - From: "Dave Land" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 8:36 PM Subject: Re: Permission Slips Re:RhetoricalQuestionsRE:RemovingDictatorsRe:PeacefulchangeL3 > On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 08:31:38 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote > > On Apr 29, 2005, at 5:07 AM, Erik Reuter wrote: > > > > > * Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > > >> True, indeed. It *was* nonsensical to use that metaphor in that > > >> context, since it was about an issue that called for serious > > >> consideration. I don't know wny you can't seem to see that. > > > > > > Well, religion-addled brains are good for one thing, anyway. This is > > > more hilarious than the 3 Stooges! > > > > Out of curiosity, why is it that Erik and a few others are able to > > get away with incessant windbaggery and insulting behavior? > > Speaking for myself, I simply don't care what Erik or WTG have to say on that > subject, so I ignore it. It's probably the most codependent aspect of this > list that we overlook the severely antisocial behaviors of certain listmembers. > I found two interesting quotes on "permission slips" from the Bush white house. The first is a quote from the 2004 State of the Union Address. The second, is from a Cheney campaign speach of early September: >From the beginning, America has sought international support for our* operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we have gained much support. There is a difference, however, between leading a coalition of many nations, and submitting to the objections of a few. America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country. Senator Kerry denounces American action when other countries don't approve as if the whole object of our foreign policy were to please a few persistent critics. In fact, in the global war on terror, as in Afghanistan and Iraq, President Bush has brought many allies to our side. But as the President has made very clear, there is a difference between leading a coalition of many, and submitting to the objections of a few. George W. Bush will never seek a permission slip to defend the American people. There are a few interesting things about these two quotes. In the first, as JDG stated, permission slip refers to getting permission from the UN, not just listening to allies. The first quote doesn't offer that as an option. It offers getting allies in line vs. getting permission. I think it is fair to say we called in a lot of favors and twisted a lot of arms to get the coalition members to join us. The second reference did discuss seriously considering the views of other countries, although obliquely. Kerry suggested we work more _with_ allies to arrive at our objective. Cheney called that "denouncing when other countries don't approve". I think that this does reflect the mindset of the Bush Administration. Due consideration for the UN and other countries involves the obligation to preach to them, so they might see the light. But, if they don't, we proceed without them. No indication of seriously taking their opinions as worthwhile (except insofar as they support us) is given. So, I think David might have been more accurate referring to Cheney dissing seriously considering the opinions of others than saying Bush had. Bush actually didn't address this, he only had the options of others following us or needing to get a permission slip. Cheney was the one who publicly dissed Kerry's argument that we need to work more with our allies. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips
At 09:14 PM 5/1/2005 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: > >Senator Kerry denounces American action when other countries don't approve >as if the whole object of our foreign policy were to please a few >persistent critics. In fact, in the global war on terror, as in Afghanistan >and Iraq, President Bush has brought many allies to our side. But as the >President has made very clear, there is a difference between leading a >coalition of many, and submitting to the objections of a few. George W. >Bush will never seek a permission slip to defend the American people. > > > >The second reference did discuss seriously considering the views of other >countries, although obliquely. Kerry suggested we work more _with_ allies >to arrive at our objective. Cheney called that "denouncing when other >countries don't approve". ^ O.k. Dan, call me crazy, but doesn't the word "approve" imply, well, "approval?"And isn't that far more akin to "getting permission" than to "serious consideration"? >So, I think David might have been more accurate referring to Cheney dissing >seriously considering the opinions of others than saying Bush had. I honestly don't see how "approval" gets translated into this. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips
- Original Message - From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 10:02 PM Subject: Re: Permission Slips > At 09:14 PM 5/1/2005 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: > > > >Senator Kerry denounces American action when other countries don't approve > >as if the whole object of our foreign policy were to please a few > >persistent critics. In fact, in the global war on terror, as in Afghanistan > >and Iraq, President Bush has brought many allies to our side. But as the > >President has made very clear, there is a difference between leading a > >coalition of many, and submitting to the objections of a few. George W. > >Bush will never seek a permission slip to defend the American people. > > > > > > > > >The second reference did discuss seriously considering the views of other > >countries, although obliquely. Kerry suggested we work more _with_ allies > >to arrive at our objective. Cheney called that "denouncing when other > >countries don't approve". > ^ > > O.k. Dan, call me crazy, but doesn't the word "approve" imply, well, > "approval?"And isn't that far more akin to "getting permission" than to > "serious consideration"? But, he was referring to Kerry's position which was "serious consideration. It is Cheney who indicated no difference between the two. > >So, I think David might have been more accurate referring to Cheney dissing > >seriously considering the opinions of others than saying Bush had. > > I honestly don't see how "approval" gets translated into this. That's not what happened. Serious consideration was translated, by Cheney, into approval. I was referencing the original idea. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips
At 10:16 PM 5/1/2005 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: >> At 09:14 PM 5/1/2005 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: >> > >> >Senator Kerry denounces American action when other countries don't >approve >> >as if the whole object of our foreign policy were to please a few >> >persistent critics. In fact, in the global war on terror, as in >Afghanistan >> >and Iraq, President Bush has brought many allies to our side. But as the >> >President has made very clear, there is a difference between leading a >> >coalition of many, and submitting to the objections of a few. George W. >> >Bush will never seek a permission slip to defend the American people. >> > >> > >> >> > >> >The second reference did discuss seriously considering the views of >other >> >countries, although obliquely. Kerry suggested we work more _with_ >allies >> >to arrive at our objective. Cheney called that "denouncing when other >> >countries don't approve". >> ^ >> >> O.k. Dan, call me crazy, but doesn't the word "approve" imply, well, >> "approval?"And isn't that far more akin to "getting permission" than >to >> "serious consideration"? > >But, he was referring to Kerry's position which was "serious consideration. >It is Cheney who indicated no difference between the two. Precisely the opposite Dan.For one, John Kerry never articulated a consistent policy regarding the Iraq War. He went from opposing Gulf War I, to voting for the authorization of the use of force in Gulf War II (which he later sent was meant simply to threaten force, not to actually use it), to voting against fully funding the troops once they were over there, to who knows what position he takes on the war today. John Kerry, however, much like Nick and Dave have done on this list, however, very often made statements that conflated "serious consideration" with "approval." For example, they would set the bar so high for "serious consideration" that the only practical outcome of this would be "approval." Take also for example, the below quote of John Kerry: "I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations." I remember others, but trying to follow Kerry's public pronouncements on Iraq is enough to make anyone dizzy. Suffice to say, your interpretation requires that Dick Cheney did not believe that John Kerry was one of the many Iraq War opponents who believed that explicit UNSC reauthorization should be a prerequisite before launching Gulf War II.I think that Dick Cheney, like many others, very legitimately believed that John Kerry did, in fact, hold that position - to the extent that he can be described as having had one. JDG P.S. and here's a quote that Dave Land should enjoy: "I've had one position, one consistent position, that Saddam Hussein was a threat. There was a right way to disarm him and a wrong way. And the president chose the wrong way. " ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips
- Original Message - From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 10:42 PM Subject: Re: Permission Slips > At 10:16 PM 5/1/2005 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: > >> At 09:14 PM 5/1/2005 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: > >> > > >> >Senator Kerry denounces American action when other countries don't > >approve > >> >as if the whole object of our foreign policy were to please a few > >> >persistent critics. In fact, in the global war on terror, as in > >Afghanistan > >> >and Iraq, President Bush has brought many allies to our side. But as the > >> >President has made very clear, there is a difference between leading a > >> >coalition of many, and submitting to the objections of a few. George W. > >> >Bush will never seek a permission slip to defend the American people. > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > >> >The second reference did discuss seriously considering the views of > >other > >> >countries, although obliquely. Kerry suggested we work more _with_ > >allies > >> >to arrive at our objective. Cheney called that "denouncing when other > >> >countries don't approve". > >> ^ > >> > >> O.k. Dan, call me crazy, but doesn't the word "approve" imply, well, > >> "approval?"And isn't that far more akin to "getting permission" than > >to > >> "serious consideration"? > > > >But, he was referring to Kerry's position which was "serious consideration. > >It is Cheney who indicated no difference between the two. > > Precisely the opposite Dan.For one, John Kerry never articulated a > consistent policy regarding the Iraq War. He went from opposing Gulf War > I, to voting for the authorization of the use of force in Gulf War II > (which he later sent was meant simply to threaten force, not to actually > use it), to voting against fully funding the troops once they were over > there, to who knows what position he takes on the war today. > > John Kerry, however, much like Nick and Dave have done on this list, > however, very often made statements that conflated "serious consideration" > with "approval." For example, they would set the bar so high for "serious > consideration" that the only practical outcome of this would be "approval." But, Bush's idea is that he would only require the US to preach the truth; he cannot fathom that he can be wrong when he knows something a priori. Kerry explictly stated that he did not agree with > Take also for example, the below quote of John Kerry: > > "I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the > world only at the directive of the United Nations." Well, that would make things easier, so I'd like to see that too. I'll agree that Kerry was being deliberately ambigious in order to both get the nomination and win the election. This statement sounds like a lot more than it states, and I don't doubt that he made it during the primaries. But, there is an enormous amount of room between Bush's position and giving a veto power to foreign nations or organizations. How about this; show me a quote that from Kerry stating that UN approval is required for US military action, and I'll concede the point. I'll seriously consider any that indicates that that is Kerry's position. > I remember others, but trying to follow Kerry's public pronouncements on > Iraq is enough to make anyone dizzy. Suffice to say, your interpretation > requires that Dick Cheney did not believe that John Kerry was one of the > many Iraq War opponents who believed that explicit UNSC reauthorization > should be a prerequisite before launching Gulf War II. No, it only required Dick Cheney to believe that Kerry would give the UN a veto over any US action. Yes, Kerry jumped around a lot on Gulf War II. He voted for the war, against funding the extended war without raising the taxes to pay for it, but for funding it through taxes. But, I remember his stating explicitly, several times, that the US would allow no foreign power to have a veto right over US policy...particularly just before Cheney said this. Iraq is a unique situation because it is a war of choice against a country that posed no direct threat to the US. Containment was a very practical alternative in '03. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips
At 10:58 PM 5/1/2005 -0500, Dan M. wrote: >Iraq is a unique situation because it is a war of choice against a country >that posed no direct threat to the US. You are pretty amazing Dan. "I've had one position, one consistent position, that Saddam Hussein was a threat. There was a right way to disarm him and a wrong way. And the president chose the wrong way. " - John Kerry JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips
At 10:58 PM 5/1/2005 -0500, Dan M. wrote: >Kerry explictly stated that he did not agree with You got cut off here. >How about this; show me a quote that from Kerry stating that UN approval is >required for US military action, and I'll concede the point. I'll >seriously consider any that indicates that that is Kerry's position. O.k., here is the famous Kerry quote: "No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons." The problem with the above quote is that it is self-contradictory. Either the US has an unlimited and unfettered right to pre-empt *or* the US must pass a "global test" before pre-empting. Given that Kerry was running for office, I think it is reasonable to assume that the first part of the above quote was merely a disclaimer to try and make his real position as palatable as possible - namely that Kerry, as President, would require some level of international approval before pre-empting. Again, Kerry would retain "the right" to pre-empt in any case, but that he would not actually do so if he did not pass some sort of "global test." The practical effect of that would be to require UN approval *de facto*, if not explicitly *de jure* in a Kerry Presidency. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips
- Original Message - From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 11:16 PM Subject: Re: Permission Slips > At 10:58 PM 5/1/2005 -0500, Dan M. wrote: > >Kerry explictly stated that he did not agree with > > You got cut off here. the idea that the UN must approve the actions of the US. > >How about this; show me a quote that from Kerry stating that UN approval is > >required for US military action, and I'll concede the point. I'll > >seriously consider any that indicates that that is Kerry's position. > > O.k., here is the famous Kerry quote: > > "No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor > would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United > States of America. > But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the > test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people > understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to > the world that you did it for legitimate reasons." > > The problem with the above quote is that it is self-contradictory. Either > the US has an unlimited and unfettered right to pre-empt *or* the US must > pass a "global test" before pre-empting. No, it's not. The question is whether you have a solid case, not whether China would ignore a solid case. Clearly, Bush's case was not solid. The trick is not being dependant on the judgement of others. I'll give an example that shows this. The UN Security Council clearly would not approve actions agains the Soviet Union during the Cuban missle crisis. Kennedy proved to the world that the Soviet Union, all protests to the contrary, was directly threatening the security of the US. It's not about UN approval, it's about having all your ducks in a row. In a sense, your arguement is the flip side of Nick's. Bush is a unilateralist. He's willing to preach the truth, but not to entertain the possibility that others may have insight he doesn't. Kerry is an internationalist. He is willing to act without UN approval, but only when he has an overwhelming case that it becomes clear that a member of the Security Council is acting as an obstructionist. I would guess that Kerry would say that Clinton's actions in the Balkans fit this. At the time of the campaign, it was clear that Bush had blown both the setting forth of the need for war and the aftermath of the war. I won't argue that it was clear before the war that there were no WMDI don't think that was clear at all. But, it was clear that Bush was selectively believing only the reports that supported a massive threat, while ignoring those that decreased the threateven when the expertise supporting the latter far outweighed that supporting the former. Powell now admits to great embarassment for making a false report before the UN. I honestly think Bush doesn't consider this important, becasue he knows that the essence of the report is right, even though the data don't support it. So, if you want to fault Kerry for being a "mealy-mouthed politician, that's pretty fair I think. But, if you want to argue that he supports giving others a veto over US actions, that's not accurate. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips
On Sun, 1 May 2005 22:16:13 -0500, Dan Minette wrote > From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > O.k. Dan, call me crazy, but doesn't the word "approve" imply, well, > > "approval?" And isn't that far more akin to "getting permission" than > to "serious consideration"? > > But, he was referring to Kerry's position which was "serious consideration. > It is Cheney who indicated no difference between the two. ... > Serious consideration was translated, by Cheney, into approval. Precisely. It is the Bush administration that has consistently and purposefully conflated giving serious consideration with getting permission. I understand the difference. They understand the difference. But they know that there are people out there -- "swing thinkers," since we're not having an election -- who haven't formed a definite understanding of difference, so they speak *as though* they were the same thing. It eventually becomes "common knowledge" that those damn liberals are demanding that the US ask other nations to be allowed to take action. With something like 80% of the talking heads on TV being booked by organizations who support the administration, it's no wonder it starts to smell like common sense. Then, by the clever conversion of "permission" to "permission slip" to activate the school-child frame, they made it even more repulsive. To reiterate, because all the flies buzzing around this particular draft animal's corpse make me think that it might get up and run again: - I understand the difference. - It is not who has conflated the two, it is our president's handlers. - They did so to move casual listeners to believe that the likes of Sen. Kerry would enslave our nation to others. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips
At 10:59 PM 5/1/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote: > It eventually becomes "common >knowledge" that those damn liberals are demanding that the US ask other >nations to be allowed to take action. Do you disagree that there were/are many liberals who believed that justification for Gulf War II required the US getting an explicit reauthorization of the use of force from the UNSC? >- They did so to move casual listeners to believe that the likes of > Sen. Kerry would enslave our nation to others. Enslavement?Now who's playing word games? JDG - So much for the moral high ground, Maru. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips
On May 2, 2005, at 4:32 AM, JDG wrote: At 10:59 PM 5/1/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote: It eventually becomes "common knowledge" that those damn liberals are demanding that the US ask other nations to be allowed to take action. Do you disagree that there were/are many liberals who believed that justification for Gulf War II required the US getting an explicit reauthorization of the use of force from the UNSC? There may have been, but that was not what was under discussion -- it was the skillful manipulation of language by the administration. - They did so to move casual listeners to believe that the likes of Sen. Kerry would enslave our nation to others. Enslavement?Now who's playing word games? You got me. Nice catch. Good thing I'm not in a position to play those games during the State of the Union Address, but just on this list. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips
At 11:45 PM 5/1/2005 -0500, Dan M. wrote: >> O.k., here is the famous Kerry quote: >> >> "No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor >> would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United >> States of America. >> But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the >> test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people >> understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to >> the world that you did it for legitimate reasons." >> >> The problem with the above quote is that it is self-contradictory. >>Either >> the US has an unlimited and unfettered right to pre-empt *or* the US must >> pass a "global test" before pre-empting. > >No, it's not. I am shocked that you would deny this. If the above is not a contradiction, then the best you can say for it is that it is irrelevant. There are two possibilities: 1) Kerry's first clause - the US has an unlimited and unfettered right to preemption. 2) Kerry's second clause - the right of the US to preemption is limited in some way - perhaps by the need to pass a "global test." Kerry's second clause presume that there exists at least some case in which failure to pass a "global test" limits the US's right and ability to preempt. If no such case exists, that is if every time the US would want to engage in preemption that it would pass the global test, then Kerry's talk of a global test is irrelevant. >He is willing to act without UN approval, but only when >he has an overwhelming case that it becomes clear that a member of the >Security Council is acting as an obstructionist. I would guess that Kerry >would say that Clinton's actions in the Balkans fit this. Yes, Kerry is willing to act without UN approval, but only when it passes some kind of "global test."That's just a fudge for other areas of international approval. And why is it just one member of the Security Council being an obstructionist? Does it apply if two are doing so? Three? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips
At 10:21 AM 5/2/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote: >>> It eventually becomes "common >>> knowledge" that those damn liberals are demanding that the US ask >>> other >>> nations to be allowed to take action. >> >> Do you disagree that there were/are many liberals who believed that >> justification for Gulf War II required the US getting an explicit >> reauthorization of the use of force from the UNSC? > >There may have been, but that was not what was under discussion -- it >was the skillful manipulation of language by the administration. Uh no, Dave. If the answer to the above question is "yes", then the "permission slip metaphor" is *not* manipulatlive language, it is a direct response to an opposing point of view. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Permission Slips
> Behalf Of JDG > > Do you disagree that there were/are many liberals who believed that > justification for Gulf War II required the US getting an explicit > reauthorization of the use of force from the UNSC? Do you disagree that there were/are many conservatives who believed that the justification for Gulf War II was that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks? - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips
- Original Message - From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 7:33 PM Subject: Re: Permission Slips > At 11:45 PM 5/1/2005 -0500, Dan M. wrote: > >> O.k., here is the famous Kerry quote: > >> > >> "No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor > >> would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United > >> States of America. > >> But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the > >> test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people > >> understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to > >> the world that you did it for legitimate reasons." > >> > >> The problem with the above quote is that it is self-contradictory. > >>Either > >> the US has an unlimited and unfettered right to pre-empt *or* the US must > >> pass a "global test" before pre-empting. > > > >No, it's not. > > I am shocked that you would deny this. If the above is not a > contradiction, then the best you can say for it is that it is irrelevant. No, the best I could say is that it is a nuanced position. Let me lay out two extremes and > There are two possibilities: > 1) Kerry's first clause - the US has an unlimited and unfettered right to > preemption. That's not what he said. An unlimited and unfettered right means that the US need not weigh the security or the soverign nature of other nations at all when it pursues it's own interests. (As an aside, the war in Iraq was not a preemptive war. The risk was not imminent enough.) He also used the words necessary to protect the United States. > 2) Kerry's second clause - the right of the US to preemption is limited in > some way - perhaps by the need to pass a "global test." Rightif there isn't a clear and present danger to US security, and other options short of war are open, then, according to this view, the US needs to be able to make a reasonable case for the war. While Gautam and I differed on the prudence of the war, I do think he made a good case for the advisability invading Iraq. Bush clearly did not. Looking at his '03 State of the Union speach and Powell's testamony; the case can be seen, in hindsight, to be built on a number of false statements. He may not have known they were false at the time, but he and Tenet should have known that they _could have been_ false. In other words, instead of making a nuanced argument based on the limited information that was available; presented a non-existant open and shut case for war. > Kerry's second clause presume that there exists at least some case in which > failure to pass a "global test" limits the US's right and ability to > preempt. If no such case exists, that is if every time the US would want > to engage in preemption that it would pass the global test, then Kerry's > talk of a global test is irrelevant. What, if some of the time a global test isn't needed: as in a clear and present danger to the US, and some of the time it is...when there is no clear and present danger. Let me give an extreme example of this. If, in 1962 missle crisis, no missles were yet set up, but the USSR would have a first strike capacity against the US if they were, then a pre-emptive strike by the US would not have to pass any sort of test. Even if there was a good chance that the USSR would respond by invading Europe, this clear and present danger to the US would be sufficient for the US's right of self-defence to take precident over the potential for mass deaths in Europe. It wouldn't matter if the Security Council passed a resolution 14-0 against this (with the US missing the meeting for some unknown reason), we'd still have the right. To give another extreme example, we would not have the right to invade Venezuala because the president thought that securing Venezuela's oil was important for the long term security of the US. Even if he were right, and it would enhance the security of the US (which is obviously debatable), it would not pass any reasonable global test. We'd have no case that we had a fundamental right to overthrow an elected government we didn't like. These two cases are deliberately extreme. Real cases (including the actual 1962 Cuban missle crisis) fall somewhere in between. Iraq was a case that was in between. Both Bush's and Kerry's positions are in between these two extremesBush tends towards acting as we will and expecting others to follow, and Kerry tends towards seeking consensus first. But, Kerry's position is no more that the US needs a permission slip than B
No Permission Slips?
Folks, George "I don't need a permission slip" Bush evidently needs one from Condi to go potty: http://tinyurl.com/df5gl Dave PS: I understand what it is to be in a position of responsibility in a meeting where every minute counts... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re:RhetoricalQuestionsRE:RemovingDictatorsRe:PeacefulchangeL3
At 07:33 PM 4/28/2005 -0700, Nick wrote: >On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 18:51:38 -0400, JDG wrote > >> On the other hand, it would be nonsensical to use that metaphor for >> seriously considering the opinion of other nations. > >True, indeed. It *was* nonsensical to use that metaphor in that context, >since it was about an issue that called for serious consideration. I don't >know wny you can't seem to see that. I can only conclude that you are now being deliberately dishonest. I explained what he used the metaphor for. You choose to keep pulling a bait and switch. The Bush Administration has never had a problem with seriously considering the opinions of other nations before acting. As such, the Bush Administration has never used a metaphor to make seriously considering the opinions of other nations appear repulsive, as Dave Land suggested. The Bush Administration does have a problem, however, with the widespread idea that the US should only engage in certain actions with the approval of the United Nations. In particularly, the Bush Administration has strongly disagreed with those people who suggested that a specific reauthorization from the United Nations should have been a necessary prerequisite for the US to have attacked Iraq in Gulf War II. The Bush Administration used the child/permission slip analogy to make this *latter* viewpoint, that the US must gain the *permission* of the UN Security Council before activing, appear repulsive and appear to be reducing our great nation to childishness. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re:RhetoricalQuestionsRE:RemovingDictatorsRe:PeacefulchangeL3
On Apr 28, 2005, at 7:43 PM, JDG wrote: The Bush Administration used the child/permission slip analogy to make this *latter* viewpoint, that the US must gain the *permission* of the UN Security Council before activing, appear repulsive and appear to be reducing our great nation to childishness. Dunno about our great nation, but obviously our citizenry has sunk to that level. Would you [plural] mind finding a different horse to flog? This one's dead. And while you're [singular] at it consider dropping the pompous tone as well. It's obnoxious. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re:RhetoricalQuestionsRE:RemovingDictatorsRe:PeacefulchangeL3
At 09:11 AM 4/29/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: >On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 18:51:38 -0400, JDG wrote > >> On the other hand, seriously considering the opinion of another is >> typically an adult-to-adult relationship.It would be rather nonsensical >> to use a child/permission slip metaphor to argue against an adult-to- >> adult dynamic of seriously considering the opinions of others. > >and JDG also wrote: > >> No, Nick, the metaphor is not nonsensical in relationship to the US >> and the UN - and I never said that it was. > >I see absolute contradiction here. > >Seriously considering the opinion of other nations is not like asking for a >permission slip. Nick, You only see "absolute contradiction here" because you keep deleting the parts where I point out that the UN Security Council is not just a debating society for the serious consideration of other nations' opinions, but also passes resolutions, which some say should be required to authorize US military actions. Saying that "the US should only act if it has explicit UN Security Council approval" is like asking for a permission slip. That is what Bush was arguing against. Bush was *not* arguing against seriously considering the opinions of other nations. Indeed, using a child/permission slip as a metaphor for "seriously considering the opinions of other nations" just wouldn't make any sense. A much more logical explanation is that the child/permission slip is a metaphor for insisting upon UN Security Council approval of US actions. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re:RhetoricalQuestionsRE:RemovingDictatorsRe:PeacefulchangeL3
On 4/29/05, JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 09:11 AM 4/29/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote:
> >On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 18:51:38 -0400, JDG wrote
> >
> >> On the other hand, seriously considering the opinion of another is
> >> typically an adult-to-adult relationship. It would be rather
nonsensical
> >> to use a child/permission slip metaphor to argue against an adult-to-
> >> adult dynamic of seriously considering the opinions of others.
> >
> >and JDG also wrote:
> >
> >> No, Nick, the metaphor is not nonsensical in relationship to the US
> >> and the UN - and I never said that it was.
> >
> >I see absolute contradiction here.
> >
> >Seriously considering the opinion of other nations is not like asking for
a
> >permission slip.
>
> Nick,
>
> You only see "absolute contradiction here" because you keep deleting the
> parts where I point out that the UN Security Council is not just a
debating
> society for the serious consideration of other nations' opinions, but also
> passes resolutions, which some say should be required to authorize US
> military actions.
>
> Saying that "the US should only act if it has explicit UN Security Council
> approval" is like asking for a permission slip.
>
> That is what Bush was arguing against.
>
> Bush was *not* arguing against seriously considering the opinions of other
> nations. Indeed, using a child/permission slip as a metaphor for
> "seriously considering the opinions of other nations" just wouldn't make
> any sense. A much more logical explanation is that the child/permission
> slip is a metaphor for insisting upon UN Security Council approval of US
> actions.
>
> JDG
I have been staying away from these arguments but since it is now veered to
a debate about framing language...
On reasons for the war Kevin Drum speaks true:
George Bush didn't mention democracy promotion as a rationale for the war
until his AIE speech of February 26, a mere three weeks before the bombing
started. The fact that he went months with barely a mention of freedom and
democracy in the Middle East, and then made such a lame speech when he did
finally mention it, was one of the main reasons that I turned against the
war. I originally supported the war as a way to "promote the values of
tolerance, human rights, and democratic self-government" in the Middle East,
but then switched sides when I finally concluded that my reasons for
supporting the war were not George Bush's ("It's simply become wishful
thinking to believe that Bush is really committed to any kind of serious
effort to promote democracy in Iraq"). In other words, I have a pretty good
memory about this stuff since it had a considerable effect on my own
thinking.
Still not convinced? Here is Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech,
delivered seven weeks before the war started. Read through it. There are
1,200 words about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and the danger they
pose. There are exactly zero words about bringing democracy to Iraq and the
greater Middle East. In fact, aside from a passing reference to Palestine,
the word "democracy" is used only once in the entire speech: in reference to
Iran, in a passage that specifically states that "different threats require
different strategies." The United States supports Iranian aspirations, Bush
said, but that's all. It's not a reason to go to war.
I can't look into George Bush's heart, but I can listen to his words and
watch his deeds. And based on that, democracy promotion was not on his
agenda before the war, during the war, or after the war until the Ayatollah
Sistani forced his hand. Let's not demean history by pretending otherwise.
On the CIA report, it stretches to say that under some circumstances under
some definitions of the word threat Iraq could someday in the future might
possibly be considered a threat to U.S. interests. I could say the same
about the Duchy of Grand Fenwick. The chief conclusion of the report -
Saddam wanted weapons to counter Iran. From the conclusion:
• Iran was the pre-eminent motivator of this policy. All senior level Iraqi
officials considered Iran to be Iraq's
principal enemy in the region. The wish to balance Israel and acquire status
and influence in the Arab world
were also considerations, but secondary.
• Iraq Survey Group (ISG) judges that events in the 1980s and early 1990s
shaped Saddam's belief in the
value of WMD. In Saddam's view, WMD helped to save the Regime multiple
times. He believed that during
the Iran-Iraq war chemical weapons had halted Iranian ground offensives and
that ballistic missile attacks
on Tehran had broken its political will. Similarly, during Desert Storm,
Saddam believed WMD had deterred
Coalition Forces from pressing their attack beyond the goal of freeing
Kuwait. WMD had even played a role
in crushing the Shi'a revolt in the south following the 1991 cease-fi re.
• The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival
of WMD after sanctions. Neither
wa
Re: Permission Slips Re:RhetoricalQuestionsRE:RemovingDictatorsRe:PeacefulchangeL3
Dave Land wrote: > On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 08:31:38 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote >> On Apr 29, 2005, at 5:07 AM, Erik Reuter wrote: >> >>> * Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >>> True, indeed. It *was* nonsensical to use that metaphor in that context, since it was about an issue that called for serious consideration. I don't know wny you can't seem to see that. >>> >>> Well, religion-addled brains are good for one thing, anyway. This >>> is >>> more hilarious than the 3 Stooges! >> >> Out of curiosity, why is it that Erik and a few others are able to >> get away with incessant windbaggery and insulting behavior? > > Speaking for myself, I simply don't care what Erik or WTG have to > say > on that subject, so I ignore it. It's probably the most codependent > aspect of this list that we overlook the severely antisocial > behaviors of certain listmembers. > We've got a disease and the only prescription is more cowbell!!! xponent More Cowbell Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re:RhetoricalQuestionsRE:RemovingDictatorsRe:PeacefulchangeL3
From: Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Permission Slips Re:RhetoricalQuestionsRE:RemovingDictatorsRe:PeacefulchangeL3 Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 08:31:38 -0700 On Apr 29, 2005, at 5:07 AM, Erik Reuter wrote: * Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: True, indeed. It *was* nonsensical to use that metaphor in that context, since it was about an issue that called for serious consideration. I don't know wny you can't seem to see that. Well, religion-addled brains are good for one thing, anyway. This is more hilarious than the 3 Stooges! Out of curiosity, why is it that Erik and a few others are able to get away with incessant windbaggery and insulting behavior? Don't let 'em get to ya Warren. You're as cool as an ice cube. And some people are about as fun -cool & fun go hand in hand - as a kick in the balls (receiving end). -Travis "IMO" Edmunds _ Designer Mail isn't just fun to send, it's fun to receive. Use special stationery, fonts and colors. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Permission Slips Re:RhetoricalQuestionsRE:RemovingDictatorsRe:PeacefulchangeL3
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Warren Ockrassa > Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 5:32 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Permission Slips > Re:RhetoricalQuestionsRE:RemovingDictatorsRe:PeacefulchangeL3 > > Out of curiosity, why is it that Erik and a few others are > able to get away with incessant windbaggery and insulting behavior? Because they are (figuratively speaking) in bed with this list's powers-that-be? Try this: ask people like Nick, Erik and JDG some questions that would force them to seriously rethink their attitudes and opinions; hold them accountable for what they say and do on this list. Then see how many (or rather: how few) of those questions will actually get answered. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: RhetoricalQuestionsRE:RemovingDictatorsRe:PeacefulchangeL3
At 07:27 AM 4/28/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: >On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:25:51 -0400, JDG wrote > >> On the other hand, seriously considering the opinion of another is >> typically an adult-to-adult relationship.It would be rather nonsensical >> to use a child/permission slip metaphor to argue against an adult-to- >> adult dynamic of seriously considering the opinions of others. > >And you're saying this in *defense* of Bush and Cheney? You've just said that >the metaphor is nonsensical in relationship to the United States and the >United Nations. Bush and Cheney used it to describe that relationship! > >So, which is it? Using the metaphor in this context is nonsensical or not? No, Nick, the metaphor is not nonsensical in relationship to the US and the UN - and I never said that it was. I am personally flabbergasted that you cannot yet connect the dots, but let me try again. The Bush Administration has never had a problem with seriously considering the opinions of other nations before acting. As such, the Bush Administration has never used a metaphor to make seriously considering the opinions of other nations appear repulsive, as Dave Land suggested. The Bush Administration does have a problem, however, with the widespread idea that the US should only engage in certain actions with the approval of the United Nations. In particularly, the Bush Administration has strongly disagreed with those people who suggested that a specific reauthorization from the United Nations should have been a necessary prerequisite for the US to have attacked Iraq in Gulf War II. The Bush Administration used the child/permission slip analogy to make this *latter* viewpoint, that the US must gain the *permission* of the UN Security Council before activing, appear repulsive and appear to be reducing our great nation to childishness. On the other hand, it would be nonsensical to use that metaphor for seriously considering the opinion of other nations. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: RhetoricalQuestionsRE:RemovingDictatorsRe:PeacefulchangeL3
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 18:51:38 -0400, JDG wrote > On the other hand, it would be nonsensical to use that metaphor for > seriously considering the opinion of other nations. True, indeed. It *was* nonsensical to use that metaphor in that context, since it was about an issue that called for serious consideration. I don't know wny you can't seem to see that. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: RhetoricalQuestionsRE:RemovingDictatorsRe:PeacefulchangeL3
* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > True, indeed. It *was* nonsensical to use that metaphor in that > context, since it was about an issue that called for serious > consideration. I don't know wny you can't seem to see that. Well, religion-addled brains are good for one thing, anyway. This is more hilarious than the 3 Stooges! -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: RhetoricalQuestionsRE:RemovingDictatorsRe:PeacefulchangeL3
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 18:51:38 -0400, JDG wrote > On the other hand, seriously considering the opinion of another is > typically an adult-to-adult relationship.It would be rather nonsensical > to use a child/permission slip metaphor to argue against an adult-to- > adult dynamic of seriously considering the opinions of others. and JDG also wrote: > No, Nick, the metaphor is not nonsensical in relationship to the US > and the UN - and I never said that it was. I see absolute contradiction here. Seriously considering the opinion of other nations is not like asking for a permission slip. It was inappropriate, a linguistic trick worthy of a huckster, not the president. If you still can't see it, I'm done. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: RhetoricalQuestionsRE:RemovingDictatorsRe:PeacefulchangeL3
On Apr 29, 2005, at 5:07 AM, Erik Reuter wrote: * Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: True, indeed. It *was* nonsensical to use that metaphor in that context, since it was about an issue that called for serious consideration. I don't know wny you can't seem to see that. Well, religion-addled brains are good for one thing, anyway. This is more hilarious than the 3 Stooges! Out of curiosity, why is it that Erik and a few others are able to get away with incessant windbaggery and insulting behavior? -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: RhetoricalQuestionsRE:RemovingDictatorsRe:PeacefulchangeL3
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 08:31:38 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote > On Apr 29, 2005, at 5:07 AM, Erik Reuter wrote: > > > * Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > >> True, indeed. It *was* nonsensical to use that metaphor in that > >> context, since it was about an issue that called for serious > >> consideration. I don't know wny you can't seem to see that. > > > > Well, religion-addled brains are good for one thing, anyway. This is > > more hilarious than the 3 Stooges! > > Out of curiosity, why is it that Erik and a few others are able to > get away with incessant windbaggery and insulting behavior? Speaking for myself, I simply don't care what Erik or WTG have to say on that subject, so I ignore it. It's probably the most codependent aspect of this list that we overlook the severely antisocial behaviors of certain listmembers. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: RhetoricalQuestionsRE:RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
At 05:32 AM 4/27/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: >> Yes, I am saying that the child/permission slip line is a metaphor >> for the US seeking the consent of the UNSC on foreign policy >> positions. > >So, who is the parent and who is the child? Isn't it obvious? In the child/permission slip analogy, the United States would be the child asking for permission from the UN. On the other hand, seriously considering the opinion of another is typically an adult-to-adult relationship.It would be rather nonsensical to use a child/permission slip metaphor to argue against an adult-to-adult dynamic of seriously considering the opinions of others. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: RhetoricalQuestionsRE:RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:25:51 -0400, JDG wrote > On the other hand, seriously considering the opinion of another is > typically an adult-to-adult relationship.It would be rather nonsensical > to use a child/permission slip metaphor to argue against an adult-to- > adult dynamic of seriously considering the opinions of others. And you're saying this in *defense* of Bush and Cheney? You've just said that the metaphor is nonsensical in relationship to the United States and the United Nations. Bush and Cheney used it to describe that relationship! So, which is it? Using the metaphor in this context is nonsensical or not? Imagine if they *had* used an adult-to-adult metaphor to describe the relationships among nations. What do adults do when they deal with conflict? They talk, collaborate, negotiate, argue, confer, seek common ground and so forth. They don't ask each other for permission slips. The statement would become something such as, "The United States doesn't need to collaborate with the international family of nations." Doesn't have quite the same impact, does it? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
National responsibility (was Re: Permission Slips)
On Sun, 01 May 2005 23:42:56 -0400, JDG wrote > John Kerry, however, much like Nick and Dave have done on this list, > however, very often made statements that conflated "serious consideration" > with "approval." You are imagining that, but by no means is it worth arguing about. Let me ask instead, John, what do you see as our responsibilities in the family of nations? What metaphors might you choose to describe appropriate interactions? I am trying to ask this in the most open-ended way I can. Let me be explicit in saying that I really want to find a way in which we can listen to each other instead of trying to convince each another that we're right. At least I want to let go of trying to convince you about the linguistic stuff. I really would like to hear what you have in mind. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical QuestionsRE:RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
At 08:57 PM 4/26/2005 -0700, Nick wrote: >> Why do you continue to dismiss the possibility that Bush was arguing >> against precisely this line of argumentation, and continue to insist >> upon conflating "asking permission" with "serious consideration"? > >I have no idea what you are talking about. > >Are you saying that the metaphor "a child asking for a permission slip from an >adult" is apropos to the United States seeking consent of the United Nations? Yes, I am saying that the child/permission slip line is a metaphor for the US seeking the consent of the UNSC on foreign policy positions.I am saying that it is *not* a metaphor for undertaking serious consideration of other countries' viewpoints. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical QuestionsRE:RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
At 08:48 PM 4/26/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: >> What is true is that in any event, the US did not impose multilateral >> sanctions on Iraq. > >In light of we have actually have done, can there be any doubt that we could >have and would have imposed *unilateral* sanctions? Well sure, but unilateral sanctions are far, far, less effective than multilateral sanctions - particularly if you are interested in denying a country any access whatsoever to particular technologies and systems. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical QuestionsRE:RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 00:06:54 -0400, JDG wrote > Yes, I am saying that the child/permission slip line is a metaphor > for the US seeking the consent of the UNSC on foreign policy > positions. So, who is the parent and who is the child? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Metaphors we live by (was permission slips)
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 23:31:46 -0400, JDG wrote ... > A much more logical explanation is that the child/permission > slip is a metaphor for insisting upon UN Security Council approval > of US actions. At the risk of boring everyone to the state of consciousness of a turnip... the argument that they were making about politics has no impact one way or the other on whether or the metaphor is appropriate. I hear you going back again and again to the meaning of the sentence, while I'm talking about the meaning of the metaphor. "Permission slip," has meaning that is independent of the sentence in which it was used. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
At 10:31 AM Friday 4/29/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Apr 29, 2005, at 5:07 AM, Erik Reuter wrote: * Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: True, indeed. It *was* nonsensical to use that metaphor in that context, since it was about an issue that called for serious consideration. I don't know wny you can't seem to see that. Well, religion-addled brains are good for one thing, anyway. This is more hilarious than the 3 Stooges! Out of curiosity, why is it that Erik and a few others are able to get away with incessant windbaggery and insulting behavior? "Cuz others find _that_ as funny as the Three Stooges? :D -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On Apr 30, 2005, at 11:27 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Out of curiosity, why is it that Erik and a few others are able to get away with incessant windbaggery and insulting behavior? "Cuz others find _that_ as funny as the Three Stooges? :D Could be, could be ... the thought occurs, though, that comments such as "religion-addled brain" are really marks of prejudice, or at least arrogance; in my experience arrogance is usually little more than vastly undeserved pride. I would like to think that those who align with atheism would be *more* inclined toward openness and understanding of others. Nick, for instance, is not what I would call religion-addled; however, being addled by one's *lack* of religion is clearly possible. It took me more than a decade of very deep personal inquiry to arrive at my atheism, and during that time I struggled with my own philosophical issues; with attempting to integrate various religious views into my own life and with one another; and ultimately with that first aching sense of isolation that I felt when I realized I could not believe in any kind of deity any longer. Looking back it was pretty damn painful sometimes. One could argue that I am the addled one for following that path. It's grossly unfair, I think, to start from the assumption that something as (ideally) deeply personal and personally intense as a quest for understanding of one's faith and one's position vis-a-vis a deity is somehow a manifestation of mental unbalance. Dawkins, as brilliant as the man is, can be too harsh, I believe; his is probably not the best model to follow in terms of framing a discussion, because there's not much discussion to be found in phrases such as "God is a delusion". That's as hubristic as "God said it, I believe it and that settles it". (I know this might read as pot-and-kettle, but Dawkins is after all a trained scientist purportedly skilled in rational discourse, while I'm the one who likes to toss the words around in an attempt to create emotional effect.) I commented before that I think atheists can be divided into two broad categories: Those who are angry at their god and so say they don't believe as an act of defiance; and those who really just can't believe. It seems to me that the angrier an atheist gets at the suggestion there might be a god, the more likely that atheist is to be in the first category. It seems to me that, if one is angered at the suggestion a god does exist, one should seek to understand why. The reverse is true of course -- if a believer becomes enraged at the suggestion a god doesn't exist, the question "why" is very pertinent. Sometimes, it seems to me, anger is really a masking emotion for fear. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
At 02:31 AM Sunday 5/1/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Apr 30, 2005, at 11:27 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Out of curiosity, why is it that Erik and a few others are able to get away with incessant windbaggery and insulting behavior? "Cuz others find _that_ as funny as the Three Stooges? :D Could be, could be ... the thought occurs, though, that comments such as "religion-addled brain" are really marks of prejudice, or at least arrogance; in my experience arrogance is usually little more than vastly undeserved pride. You realize, I trust, that the above was just another smart-aleck one-liner . . . I would like to think that those who align with atheism would be *more* inclined toward openness and understanding of others. Nick, for instance, is not what I would call religion-addled; however, being addled by one's *lack* of religion is clearly possible. It took me more than a decade of very deep personal inquiry to arrive at my atheism, and during that time I struggled with my own philosophical issues; with attempting to integrate various religious views into my own life and with one another; and ultimately with that first aching sense of isolation that I felt when I realized I could not believe in any kind of deity any longer. Looking back it was pretty damn painful sometimes. One could argue that I am the addled one for following that path. It's grossly unfair, I think, to start from the assumption that something as (ideally) deeply personal and personally intense as a quest for understanding of one's faith and one's position vis-a-vis a deity is somehow a manifestation of mental unbalance. Dawkins, as brilliant as the man is, can be too harsh, I believe; his is probably not the best model to follow in terms of framing a discussion, because there's not much discussion to be found in phrases such as "God is a delusion". That's as hubristic as "God said it, I believe it and that settles it". (I know this might read as pot-and-kettle, but Dawkins is after all a trained scientist purportedly skilled in rational discourse, while I'm the one who likes to toss the words around in an attempt to create emotional effect.) I commented before that I think atheists can be divided into two broad categories: Those who are angry at their god and so say they don't believe as an act of defiance; and those who really just can't believe. It seems to me that the angrier an atheist gets at the suggestion there might be a god, the more likely that atheist is to be in the first category. It seems to me that, if one is angered at the suggestion a god does exist, one should seek to understand why. The reverse is true of course -- if a believer becomes enraged at the suggestion a god doesn't exist, the question "why" is very pertinent. Sometimes, it seems to me, anger is really a masking emotion for fear. "Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering." -- Ronn! :) "While we cannot agree with others on certain matters, we must never be disagreeable. We must be friendly, soft-spoken, neighborly, and understanding." President Gordon B. Hinckley, October 2003 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On May 1, 2005, at 2:59 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 02:31 AM Sunday 5/1/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Apr 30, 2005, at 11:27 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Out of curiosity, why is it that Erik and a few others are able to get away with incessant windbaggery and insulting behavior? "Cuz others find _that_ as funny as the Three Stooges? :D Could be, could be ... the thought occurs, though, that comments such as "religion-addled brain" are really marks of prejudice, or at least arrogance; in my experience arrogance is usually little more than vastly undeserved pride. You realize, I trust, that the above was just another smart-aleck one-liner . . . Yes, but it was far too good an opportunity for soapboxery to let go by. "Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering." Yeah, I call that Lucasian Zen. By Yoda's argument, I was *afraid* of SWII. A better formulation is that attachment leads to fear and/or anger. Attachment also leads to suffering. As for the fear -> anger thing, I don't think so -- in our lovely modern American society, for instance, men are supposed to show two or possibly three really strong emotions: Anger, horniness and (possibly) jocularity. Nothing else. No sadness, and certainly no fear. Men aren't taught how to probe their emotions, are not encouraged to introspect and name their feelings, and when ambivalent or complex or subtle emotions arise, particularly if they're unpleasant, the typical male response is just anger. (Which might be partly rooted in frustration.) So anger is often a masking emotion for something else, and often that something else is fear. At least in my experience that's the case. "While we cannot agree with others on certain matters, we must never be disagreeable. We must be friendly, soft-spoken, neighborly, and understanding." — President Gordon B. Hinckley, October 2003 Ah, screw 'em. ;) But this does lead to another question: How does one reconcile this injunction with Orin Hatch (example) and his push for certain amendments? The bludgeon of law is hardly soft-spoken, and prejudice is *never* understanding. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
> I commented before that I think atheists can be divided into two broad > categories: Those who are angry at their god and so say they don't > believe as an act of defiance; and those who really just can't believe. > It seems to me that the angrier an atheist gets at the suggestion there > might be a god, the more likely that atheist is to be in the first > category. It seems to me that, if one is angered at the suggestion a > god does exist, one should seek to understand why. > > The reverse is true of course -- if a believer becomes enraged at the > suggestion a god doesn't exist, the question "why" is very pertinent. > > Sometimes, it seems to me, anger is really a masking emotion for fear. Anger can be a reaction to fear...just as depression can be suppressed anger. I think your suggestion that any atheist that gets angry at the suggestion that God exists has unresolved personal issues with respect to God has real validity. People who are very comfortable with their own beliefs can be very passionate about them, but are usually not hateful or angry towards people who happen to disagree with them. As for the pass given to Erik and Will, I've tussled with them a number of times over the past few years on that subject, and now tend to pick my spots instead of reacting to every statement. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
List manager ethos (was Re: Permission Slips)
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 08:31:38 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote > Out of curiosity, why is it that Erik and a few others are able to > get away with incessant windbaggery and insulting behavior? Free speech. More seriously... our list managers (Julia, myself and Dave Land as backup) have a very strong prejudice toward tolerating words that might be construed as violations of our guidelines, such as the personal attack one. That prejudice is extremely strong regarding such words directed at me, precisely because I have pretty much total control of the list (except that ultimately, the list can move off my servers). It's a moral presumption against the use of great power, on the tiny scale of the list. I suppose I could try to wield my mighty powers to seek some sort of Pax Arnetta... Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On May 1, 2005, at 7:49 PM, Dan Minette wrote: Anger can be a reaction to fear...just as depression can be suppressed anger. I think your suggestion that any atheist that gets angry at the suggestion that God exists has unresolved personal issues with respect to God has real validity. It makes sense to me anyway. I suppose it's an extension of my sense that people who feel threatened by homosexuals have their own unresolved issues to address. As for the pass given to Erik and Will, I've tussled with them a number of times over the past few years on that subject, and now tend to pick my spots instead of reacting to every statement. Well, it's not just them that get away with it though. I've seen much oversloppage of bombast in the last week or so, only a relatively small amount of which came from either Erik or William. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
> Behalf Of Dan Minette > > Anger can be a reaction to fear...just as depression can be suppressed > anger. I think your suggestion that any atheist that gets > angry at the > suggestion that God exists has unresolved personal issues > with respect to > God has real validity. People who are very comfortable with their own > beliefs can be very passionate about them, but are usually > not hateful or > angry towards people who happen to disagree with them. Often, I think it is a reaction to the negative and hateful things directed at the atheists by the religious in general. Or perceived to be directed at them. It could be viewed as justified payback. Not necessarily from the people being attacked but by society and religion in general. Now, I don't agree with that, necessarily, and don't think it is proper but have seen that behavior in some of those close to me who happen to be atheists. - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On 1 May 2005, at 8:31 am, Warren Ockrassa wrote: I commented before that I think atheists can be divided into two broad categories: Those who are angry at their god and so say they don't believe as an act of defiance; and those who really just can't believe. It seems to me that the angrier an atheist gets at the suggestion there might be a god, the more likely that atheist is to be in the first category. It seems to me that, if one is angered at the suggestion a god does exist, one should seek to understand why. The reverse is true of course -- if a believer becomes enraged at the suggestion a god doesn't exist, the question "why" is very pertinent. I've never been religious. I get annoyed about people trying to spread religious ideas because they are nonsense and nonsense annoys me. People capable of believing in gods are capable of believing any crazy nonsense and that makes them potentially dangerous to me. Sometimes, it seems to me, anger is really a masking emotion for fear. I do like to sit with my back against a wall and a good view of what's going on when I'm in public places in case some religious nutcase is going about with a knife or gun. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ "A bad thing done for a good cause is still a bad thing. It's why so few people slap their political opponents. That, and because slapping looks so silly." - Randy Cohen. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On May 5, 2005, at 11:20 AM, William T Goodall wrote: On 1 May 2005, at 8:31 am, Warren Ockrassa wrote: The reverse is true of course -- if a believer becomes enraged at the suggestion a god doesn't exist, the question "why" is very pertinent. I've never been religious. I get annoyed about people trying to spread religious ideas because they are nonsense and nonsense annoys me. People capable of believing in gods are capable of believing any crazy nonsense and that makes them potentially dangerous to me. On another list there's been a discussion in the last few days about the findings of science, and particularly how many of us simply accept them without question. For example many adults know that our solar system is heliocentric and Earth is roughly spherical, but how many of them can actually explain *why* that is true? More to the point, what is the difference between accepting -- without question -- the statement "Sol lies at the center of our solar system" versus accepting -- again without question -- the statement "God lies at the center of our lives"? When you comment that "People capable of believing in gods are capable of believing any crazy nonsense", you overlook a significant point, I think, and that is that it is *human nature* to believe something we've been told, particularly if it seems to descend from authority. This is probably innate; as children we'd damn well better believe what the adults tell us, or else we might get eaten by a predator. I think the tendency persists, and it's hard to counter its effects sometimes. This suggests to me that those who do not believe in a deity are no more proof from believing wacky things than those who do, and (in my estimation) it is profoundly intellectually arrogant -- as well as probably disprovable -- to suggest that atheism is an insulation against nonsense. Sometimes, it seems to me, anger is really a masking emotion for fear. I do like to sit with my back against a wall and a good view of what's going on when I'm in public places in case some religious nutcase is going about with a knife or gun. And how often has this actually happened in your life? How many times have you actually been victimized by "some religious nutcase" with a weapon? Is this attitude significantly different from that held, for instance, by apocalyptics, who are certain the world will end any moment and they will be raptured? That is, if you sincerely think you're going to be injured or killed by a religious fanatic, how is that different from a religious person believing in "any crazy nonsense"? I will agree that religious fervor has been a significant cause of a lot of misery in the world. Only a fool unaware of history, I think, would attempt to argue to the contrary. (Or current events, of course.) However, being utterly dismissive of religion on the basis of its negative history is sort of like being utterly dismissive of the US today because at one time the nation condoned slave ownership. History is a tool from which to learn, I think, not one with which to indict those of whom we disapprove. As I see it the problem is not religion; it's undisciplined, irrational thought -- and that is as prevalent *outside* of any church as it is inside. If you want to have a productive discussion with a religious person, attack the faulty thought process rather than its results. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On Thu, 5 May 2005 14:01:00 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote > Sometimes, it seems to me, anger is really a masking emotion for fear. Only sometimes? How about always? Although other things may lie behind anger, I tend to think that fear is always there. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On 5 May 2005, at 10:01 pm, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On another list there's been a discussion in the last few days about the findings of science, and particularly how many of us simply accept them without question. For example many adults know that our solar system is heliocentric and Earth is roughly spherical, but how many of them can actually explain *why* that is true? More to the point, what is the difference between accepting -- without question -- the statement "Sol lies at the center of our solar system" versus accepting -- again without question -- the statement "God lies at the center of our lives"? When you comment that "People capable of believing in gods are capable of believing any crazy nonsense", you overlook a significant point, I think, and that is that it is *human nature* to believe something we've been told, particularly if it seems to descend from authority. This is probably innate; as children we'd damn well better believe what the adults tell us, or else we might get eaten by a predator. I've been disregarding authority figures my entire life. I learned that 'hot' really was bad by sticking my hand in a fire when about two. I've argued with teachers all the way through school and university, and been flung out of a few classes taught by those who couldn't stand having their authority questioned. I'm the guy who corrects the error in what the lecturer just wrote on the board. The idea that I might accept something just because somebody said so is hilarious! I think the tendency persists, and it's hard to counter its effects sometimes. This suggests to me that those who do not believe in a deity are no more proof from believing wacky things than those who do, It's true that many people are gullible and credulous and easily taken in by charlatans, and that this is a good explanation for the frequency of religious belief. and (in my estimation) it is profoundly intellectually arrogant -- as well as probably disprovable -- to suggest that atheism is an insulation against nonsense. I don't think atheism is insulation against nonsense. I think atheism is an indicator that someone is insulated against nonsense. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ "The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible." - Bertrand Russell ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On May 5, 2005, at 4:14 PM, William T Goodall wrote: I've been disregarding authority figures my entire life. I learned that 'hot' really was bad by sticking my hand in a fire when about two. I've argued with teachers all the way through school and university, and been flung out of a few classes taught by those who couldn't stand having their authority questioned. I'm the guy who corrects the error in what the lecturer just wrote on the board. The idea that I might accept something just because somebody said so is hilarious! I bet that listening to authorities is evolutionarily favored, and listening *critically* to authorities even more so. Categorically disregarding authority is no better than categorically following them: it is equally foolish. The single greatest problem I see with categorically disregarding authority is that it seems to require one to know (practically) everything, be willing to learn (practically) everything, or suffer the consequences. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. It's a good thing that nobody in a position of authority ever told you that if you put a loaded gun into your mouth and pull the trigger, you might injure yourself, and you felt the need to prove them wrong. I think the tendency persists, and it's hard to counter its effects sometimes. This suggests to me that those who do not believe in a deity are no more proof from believing wacky things than those who do, It's true that many people are gullible and credulous and easily taken in by charlatans, and that this is a good explanation for the frequency of religious belief. And, naturally, anti-religious belief. "There is a God" and "there is no God" are equally statements of faith. and (in my estimation) it is profoundly intellectually arrogant -- as well as probably disprovable -- to suggest that atheism is an insulation against nonsense. I don't think atheism is insulation against nonsense. I think atheism is an indicator that someone is insulated against nonsense. Not necessarily the only indicator, and not necessarily a reliable one. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
* Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > "There is a God" and "there is no God" are equally statements of > faith. And "there are fearsome, invisible, undetectable pink unicorns" and "there are no fearsome, invisible, undetectable pink unicorns" are equally statements of faith. But "there are babelfish" and "there are no babelfish" are not equally statements of faith. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On 5/5/05, Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > "There is a God" and "there is no God" are equally statements of > > faith. > > And "there are fearsome, invisible, undetectable pink unicorns" and > "there are no fearsome, invisible, undetectable pink unicorns" are > equally statements of faith. > > But "there are babelfish" and "there are no babelfish" are not equally > statements of faith. > > -- > Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ WIthout any further data or probablities about 'babelfish', those paired statements are all equivalent. ~Maru But you didn't say they weren't undetectable! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On May 5, 2005, at 5:05 PM, Erik Reuter wrote: * Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: "There is a God" and "there is no God" are equally statements of faith. And "there are fearsome, invisible, undetectable pink unicorns" and "there are no fearsome, invisible, undetectable pink unicorns" are equally statements of faith. My God, Erik: we agree! Well, mostly. Actually, maybe not. Damn. The statements "There is [a/no] God" matter to people so much so that they feel that they are "betting their lives" on their choice, or at least so much so that they feel it necessary to burden Brin-L with their [pro/anti]-religious proclamations. One who was arguing from his conclusion might assert that the pair of statements you posed above are statements of faith simply because he had concluded that there is no difference between God and fearsome, invisible, undetectable pink unicorns (IUPUs). With our extensive Brin-L training, we would not fall victim to that logical fallacy. We would not begin by asserting the unprovable claim that there is no difference between God and IUPUs, so we could not conclude that there is no difference between your pair of statements and mine. Damn those Greeks. Incidentally, one of my favorite resources for reminding myself about the nature of logical fallacies is at the Atheism Web: http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html But "there are babelfish" and "there are no babelfish" are not equally statements of faith. Because http://babelfish.altavista.com/ certainly exists. May your own personal IUPUs bless you, Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On 6 May 2005, at 12:58 am, Dave Land wrote: On May 5, 2005, at 4:14 PM, William T Goodall wrote: I've been disregarding authority figures my entire life. I learned that 'hot' really was bad by sticking my hand in a fire when about two. I've argued with teachers all the way through school and university, and been flung out of a few classes taught by those who couldn't stand having their authority questioned. I'm the guy who corrects the error in what the lecturer just wrote on the board. The idea that I might accept something just because somebody said so is hilarious! I bet that listening to authorities is evolutionarily favored, and listening *critically* to authorities even more so. Categorically disregarding authority is no better than categorically following them: it is equally foolish. That's why one needs to figure out which authority figures actually know what they are talking about and which are authority figures because of monkey tribal nonsense. Which is why epistemology is important. I think you missed the 'just' in 'just because' in the last sentence you quoted. The single greatest problem I see with categorically disregarding authority is that it seems to require one to know (practically) everything, be willing to learn (practically) everything, or suffer the consequences. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. It's a good thing that nobody in a position of authority ever told you that if you put a loaded gun into your mouth and pull the trigger, you might injure yourself, and you felt the need to prove them wrong. That would be a very silly way of testing that claim. I think the tendency persists, and it's hard to counter its effects sometimes. This suggests to me that those who do not believe in a deity are no more proof from believing wacky things than those who do, It's true that many people are gullible and credulous and easily taken in by charlatans, and that this is a good explanation for the frequency of religious belief. And, naturally, anti-religious belief. "There is a God" and "there is no God" are equally statements of faith. No, they aren't actually. "There is no God" is a rational claim based on evidence. "There is a God" is a statement of faith made in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. and (in my estimation) it is profoundly intellectually arrogant -- as well as probably disprovable -- to suggest that atheism is an insulation against nonsense. I don't think atheism is insulation against nonsense. I think atheism is an indicator that someone is insulated against nonsense. Not necessarily the only indicator, and not necessarily a reliable one. True. And? -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ "It is our belief, however, that serious professional users will run out of things they can do with UNIX." - Ken Olsen, President of DEC, 1984. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
At 04:58 PM 05/05/05 -0700, Dave wrote: snip And, naturally, anti-religious belief. "There is a God" and "there is no God" are equally statements of faith. Of course, "There is no God but we regret this fact and are working to correct it." is the project statement for the friendly AI project. Keith Henson ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
* Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > The statements "There is [a/no] God" matter to people so much so that ^ some ^ foolish -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
At 07:05 PM Thursday 5/5/2005, Erik Reuter wrote: * Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > "There is a God" and "there is no God" are equally statements of > faith. And "there are fearsome, invisible, undetectable pink unicorns" and "there are no fearsome, invisible, undetectable pink unicorns" are equally statements of faith. But "there are babelfish" and "there are no babelfish" are not equally statements of faith. Ah, stick it in your ear . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
At 08:38 PM Thursday 5/5/2005, William T Goodall wrote: On 6 May 2005, at 12:58 am, Dave Land wrote: It's a good thing that nobody in a position of authority ever told you that if you put a loaded gun into your mouth and pull the trigger, you might injure yourself, and you felt the need to prove them wrong. That would be a very silly way of testing that claim. People do silly things. People under the influence of mood- or mind-altering substances such as EtOH do many silly things. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
William, WTG: The idea that I might accept something just because somebody said so is hilarious! DML: Categorically disregarding authority is no better than categorically following them: it is equally foolish. WTG: I think you missed the 'just' in 'just because' in the last sentence you quoted. Also, you were making a statement about yourself, which I took as a general statement. I sit corrected. DML: It's a good thing that nobody in a position of authority ever told you that if you put a loaded gun into your mouth and pull the trigger, you might injure yourself, and you felt the need to prove them wrong. WTG: That would be a very silly way of testing that claim. It was intended to be, but putting one's hand in a fire is a pretty silly way of testing the real badness of "hot," as well. Sure, you were only two, but suppose your two-year-old epistemologist was exposed to firearms, and not merely fire? WTG: It's true that many people are gullible and credulous and easily taken in by charlatans, and that this is a good explanation for the frequency of religious belief. DML: And, naturally, anti-religious belief. "There is a God" and "there is no God" are equally statements of faith. WTG: No, they aren't actually. "There is no God" is a rational claim based on evidence. "There is a God" is a statement of faith made in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Do you have evidence of the non-existence of God, or do you merely conflate the lack of evidence of the existence of God with evidence of God's non-existence? I know that I ask questions by way of making an argument, but this time, I really want to know what you consider to be the hard evidence of the non-existence of God. WTG: I don't think atheism is insulation against nonsense. I think atheism is an indicator that someone is insulated against nonsense. DML: Not necessarily the only indicator, and not necessarily a reliable one. WTG: True. And? Your statement lacks the force it might have had. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On May 5, 2005, at 6:44 PM, Erik Reuter wrote: The statements "There is [a/no] God" matter to people so much so that ^ some ^ foolish Another argument from conclusion. Also, it apparently matters to you that there is no God, or you wouldn't continue spamming the list with your refutations. Or, you are including yourself among some foolish people. You wouldn't be the first person on this list to self-identify as a Fool. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On 6 May 2005, at 3:19 am, Dave Land wrote: WTG: No, they aren't actually. "There is no God" is a rational claim based on evidence. "There is a God" is a statement of faith made in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Do you have evidence of the non-existence of God, or do you merely conflate the lack of evidence of the existence of God with evidence of God's non-existence? I know that I ask questions by way of making an argument, but this time, I really want to know what you consider to be the hard evidence of the non-existence of God. Lack of evidence for something is evidence against it. Overwhelming lack of evidence for something is overwhelming evidence against it. The claim is that there is a god, omniscient, omnipotent, created the universe and so on. A remarkable claim. And after thousands of years not one shred of evidence or plausible argument to support the idea. Case closed. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ "Aerospace is plumbing with the volume turned up." - John Carmack ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
* Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On May 5, 2005, at 6:44 PM, Erik Reuter wrote: > > >>The statements "There is [a/no] God" matter to people so much so > >>that > > > >^ some ^ foolish > > Another argument from conclusion. > > Also, it apparently matters to you that there is no God, or you > wouldn't continue spamming the list with your refutations. > > Or, you are including yourself among some foolish people. You wouldn't > be the first person on this list to self-identify as a Fool. Think, Dave. I know it is hard with your infection, but try! Or just pay attention, since William already explained a couple times. One more time: it is foolish religious people that are the concern, not the existence or non-existence of some god. Do you accuse psychiatrists who want their patients to stop talking to invisible pink unicorns of being worried about the existence of said unicorns? If so, you are in worse shape than I thought... -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On May 5, 2005, at 7:44 PM, Erik Reuter wrote: * Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On May 5, 2005, at 6:44 PM, Erik Reuter wrote: The statements "There is [a/no] God" matter to people so much so that ^ some ^ foolish Another argument from conclusion. Also, it apparently matters to you that there is no God, or you wouldn't continue spamming the list with your refutations. Or, you are including yourself among some foolish people. You wouldn't be the first person on this list to self-identify as a Fool. Think, Dave. I know it is hard with your infection, but try! Or just pay attention, since William already explained a couple times. Thanks for reminding me: the other pathetic logical fallacy that you frequently engage in is ad hominem attacks. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On May 5, 2005, at 4:14 PM, William T Goodall wrote: and (in my estimation) it is profoundly intellectually arrogant -- as well as probably disprovable -- to suggest that atheism is an insulation against nonsense. I don't think atheism is insulation against nonsense. I think atheism is an indicator that someone is insulated against nonsense. This suggests infallibility. I think you've missed what I was driving at, which is that *all* people are susceptible to flawed thinking; a good self-correcting process for thinking is certainly helpful, but using atheism as a litmus test to determine whether any given individual is less prone to believe other fanciful notions is itself, to me, flawed thinking, or a belief in nonsense. As an oblique corollary, Newton was one hell of a fine rational thinker. His treatises on physics and optics are very good examples of that. However, he also attempted to use that fine rational mind of his to try to prove Biblical claims. Erik might suggest that Newton was addled, and maybe he was in the religious arena. Gregor Mendel, even tough he was a monk, did some seriously groundbreaking work in genetics. His pea-plant charts are virtually cliche in science classrooms in the US, a little like the eye charts in optician's offices that read E FP TOZ LPED... This suggests that even though he might have been addled in some ways, he was an incisive thinker in others. The corollary is this. While one could argue that atheists are being fine rational thinkers in the arena of religion, there's pretty strong circumstantial evidence to suggest that they (we) can also be addled in ways not apparent to them (us). -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On May 5, 2005, at 6:38 PM, William T Goodall wrote: On 6 May 2005, at 12:58 am, Dave Land wrote: I bet that listening to authorities is evolutionarily favored, and listening *critically* to authorities even more so. Categorically disregarding authority is no better than categorically following them: it is equally foolish. That's why one needs to figure out which authority figures actually know what they are talking about and which are authority figures because of monkey tribal nonsense. Which is why epistemology is important. I think you missed the 'just' in 'just because' in the last sentence you quoted. Yes; deductive thinking is important. It's very valuable. And it's not being inculcated properly, I think; students accepting the fact of evolution by rote are no more capable of thinking clearly (a priori) than other students accepting that the six-day creation was the way it "really" happened. (I know my phrasing here shows my bias. While I can argue for the contrary regarding matters of faith, I cannot in seriousness present evolution as anything but fact or creation as anything but fantasy.) I'm not personally trying to question your decision about nonexistence of deity. I'm just suggesting that not believing is not necessarily any different -- or any better, at its core -- than believing. There has to be something behind the declaration, something that approximates self-correcting ideation. [me re acceptance of authority] I think the tendency persists, and it's hard to counter its effects sometimes. This suggests to me that those who do not believe in a deity are no more proof from believing wacky things than those who do, It's true that many people are gullible and credulous and easily taken in by charlatans, and that this is a good explanation for the frequency of religious belief. And, naturally, anti-religious belief. "There is a God" and "there is no God" are equally statements of faith. No, they aren't actually. "There is no God" is a rational claim based on evidence. "There is a God" is a statement of faith made in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. That's not a valid statement without a lot of qualifiers; for instance you don't describe here what sort of god you're talking about. If a believer is a Deist, he might assert that the only role his god had was in the initial creation of the universe, perhaps twiddling the laws a bit in such a way that life could exist (a kind of anthropic principled god). If that Deist than went on to say that, after getting things going, that god has been totally hands-off, the results we see today would not in any way be affected; that is, that entity's presence would not be reflected in anything e see around us now. No fingerprints, no shadows, no hairs left behind at the crime scene. Therefore denial of that god's existence might be as much a statement of faith as asserting that such a god exists. Now Occam would probably disagree, but we have to start balancing elegances here a little. The universe's physics do seem to be slanted pro-life, as it were (contrarily, that's not surprising, because if they weren't slanted that way we couldn't be here); and of course we can't meaningfully speak of anything that happened before the universe we inhabit now came into existence. What we have, really, is something that is not testable or falsifiable, which precisely places a Deist's claim in the realm of faith. Thus it's meaningless to assert there's evidence either way, ultimately. What I see when I look around is a cosmos that suggests there is no deific entity currently pulling any strings anywhere. Thus the idea of an involved, omnipresent, -scient and -potent god is not one I can accept. But if we put on the table the suggestion that a hands-off entity got everything started and has since been watching things play out -- well, while I find the idea unlikely, ultimately I can't disprove it. It was this uncertainty that kept me an agnostic for quite some time, FWIW. So, depending on how you define your gods, denial of their existence can reasonably (I think) be seen as an expression of faith. A Pauline's involved god or a six-day clay shaper doesn't strike me as being remotely possible, and I don't think that statement is one of faith; however, the Deist idea is not one I can simply dismiss as readily. There, I'll freely concede, I am expressing a faith rather than a proximate certainty. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On May 5, 2005, at 7:41 PM, William T Goodall wrote: Lack of evidence for something is evidence against it. Overwhelming lack of evidence for something is overwhelming evidence against it. That's a fair premise, I think. The claim is that there is a god, omniscient, omnipotent, created the universe and so on. A remarkable claim. Not the least because I didn't see anyone putting forth that claim in this thread; you're arguing against an idea no one's actually proposed in this discussion. Your straw god is easy to knock down but is not the focus of this flurry of electrons, I think. And after thousands of years not one shred of evidence or plausible argument to support the idea. Case closed. For the personally involved god idea, sure. Unless, of course, that god was something more like a universal scientist, possibly something akin to Sawyer's entity in _Calculating God_ -- one who got involved only in the most extreme moments, and even then indirectly, acting as a force of nature a la Job's whirlwind. That, you could argue, is a sophistry, and I'd likely agree. I'm presenting it here partly to be the Devil's advocate and partly to point out that not all conundrums necessarily have binary resolutions. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On May 5, 2005, at 7:23 PM, Dave Land wrote: Also, it apparently matters to you that there is no God, or you wouldn't continue spamming the list with your refutations. You know, atheists getting pissed off about others' faith seems classically sysiphian. There are about 220 million of us opposed to the rest of the world. Like it or not we live in a world of faith; the best approach is probably not to get angry about that. It's a little like being furious at gravity for existing. And it really is insupportably arrogant to presume that the simple fact of atheism is sufficient to suggest a given individual is clear-minded, thinking rationally or proof against crackpottery. Unfortunately another hallmark of arrogance is being unable to concede being wrong, so I don't expect anyone who disagrees with that statement to suddenly change tune. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
>From William T Goodall > > On 6 May 2005, at 3:19 am, Dave Land wrote: > > >> WTG: No, they aren't actually. "There is no God" is a rational > >> claim based on evidence. "There is a God" is a statement of faith > >> made in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. > >> > > > > Do you have evidence of the non-existence of God, or do you merely > > conflate the lack of evidence of the existence of God with evidence > > of God's non-existence? I know that I ask questions by way of > > making an argument, but this time, I really want to know what you > > consider to be the hard evidence of the non-existence of God. > > > > > > Lack of evidence for something is evidence against it. Overwhelming > lack of evidence for something is overwhelming evidence against it. > > The claim is that there is a god, omniscient, omnipotent, created the > universe and so on. A remarkable claim. And after thousands of years > not one shred of evidence or plausible argument to support the idea. > Case closed. > Isn't it part of the God design specs that you can't prove its existence? It has to be a faith thing, not a proof thing. You may call that a slight of hand, but if I was on the design team, I would call it intelligent design. So, God is outside the normal bounds of proof, I guess that's part of the point of being/having a God. Those of a scientific bent may claim that's not fair, equally, those who have faith (And I am not amongst that number) would say that it is in fact crucial and very germane to the whole God caper. Andrew ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On May 5, 2005, at 3:28 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: On Thu, 5 May 2005 14:01:00 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote Sometimes, it seems to me, anger is really a masking emotion for fear. Only sometimes? How about always? Although other things may lie behind anger, I tend to think that fear is always there. That could well be true. I was thinking more, however, of the emotional range to which many men seem socially constrained -- anger or horniness, possibly exuberance. That is, when a man says he's angry, he could really be feeling fear, but expressing that fear in the only way he knows how. That's what I meant by "masking emotion" -- he's afraid but can't admit it, basically. As to fear being present with anger in all cases ... that's a very interesting idea, and my inclination is to agree with your assessment. If anger is (in essence) a response to perceived threat -- any perceived threat -- it could be easy to support the suggestion that there's at least *some* fear there as well. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On May 5, 2005, at 7:44 PM, Erik Reuter wrote: One more time: it is foolish religious people that are the concern, not the existence or non-existence of some god. Do you accuse psychiatrists who want their patients to stop talking to invisible pink unicorns of being worried about the existence of said unicorns? If so, you are in worse shape than I thought... For years I have struggled with the idea of sexual orientation. I'm currently of the inclination that it doesn't exist objectively. Gay, straight or in-between are, to me, ideas, nothing more. All human behavior can become very complex when the factor of consciousness comes into play. When we're hungry we eat -- that's biology -- but *what* we eat is a product, to a significant extent, of culture. A Chinese person might find jellyfish a delicacy. I don't. And within a given culture, there are subcultures; vegetarianism very probably is no more healthy than an omnivorous or carnivorous diet (there's essentially no objective evidence to show that one diet preference, within reason, is meaningfully healthy as opposed to another. (That is, an all-Twinkie diet is not healthy, but a diet that includes no meat at all is not necessarily any healthier than one that is virtually Atkinsesque). I've found through my own experience that my orientation is malleable. I used to identify as gay but for the last decade or so that's really been more a label of political convenience I use from time to time. In truth I'm comfortable with intimacy with any gender. I think I more or less "talked" myself to that point. This is pertinent because I sense here an impression that religious people just "don't get it" -- but then, why should they? If I'm right that sexual orientation is psychological rather than physiological -- no gay gene, mindset rather than hard-wired body response -- some might latch onto that and say, well, why don't gay people stop being gay? Probably for the same reasons religious people don't stop being religious. It's a comfort issue, a personal issue, and to the extent that it doesn't harm others, it's no one's business. If Person A has an outlook and set of behaviors that cause no harm to others, what right has Person B to suggest that Person A should change? Even if it's true that Person A could change any time he wants to, it's not really Person B's business to be demanding that change, at least to my mind. A few years back I was amused at the response I got from a colleague who was shocked to learn I was an atheist. She said she'd never met anyone who "admitted to" it before, as though it was something shameful; well, how is that idea any different from someone "confessing" to being gay? Minorities can get defensive, particularly when they feel embattled. Surely part of many atheists' frustration comes from that. But when atheists start behaving as though they're eminently right while everyone else is too restricted to see what's so obviously clear, I start wondering what the difference is between their views and that of gays and bisexuals who think avowed heterosexuals are afraid of themselves, or lack the insight necessary to appreciate sex outside their "conformist" views. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
* Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Thanks for reminding me: the other pathetic logical fallacy that you > frequently engage in is ad hominem attacks. Awww, poor Dave. Can't think. Likes to whine. Aw. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
At 12:29 AM Friday 5/6/2005, Dave Land wrote: On May 5, 2005, at 7:44 PM, Erik Reuter wrote: * Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On May 5, 2005, at 6:44 PM, Erik Reuter wrote: The statements "There is [a/no] God" matter to people so much so that ^ some ^ foolish Another argument from conclusion. Also, it apparently matters to you that there is no God, or you wouldn't continue spamming the list with your refutations. Or, you are including yourself among some foolish people. You wouldn't be the first person on this list to self-identify as a Fool. Think, Dave. I know it is hard with your infection, but try! Or just pay attention, since William already explained a couple times. Thanks for reminding me: the other pathetic logical fallacy that you frequently engage in is ad hominem attacks. Though after the first few times they generally become ad nauseum . . . -- Ronn! :) IMPORTANT: This email is intended for the use of the individual addressee(s) above and may contain information that is confidential, privileged or unsuitable for overly sensitive persons with low self-esteem, no sense of humo(u)r or irrational religious beliefs (including atheism). If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email is not authorized (either explicitly or implicitly) and constitutes an irritating social faux pas. Unless the word absquatulation has been used in its correct context somewhere other than in this warning, it does not have any legal or grammatical use and may be ignored. No animals were harmed in the transmission of this email, although that ugly little yapping dog next door is living on borrowed time, let me tell you. Those of you with an overwhelming fear of the unknown will be gratified to learn that there is no hidden message revealed by reading this warning backwards, so just ignore that Alert Notice from Microsoft. However, by pouring a complete circle of salt around yourself and your computer you can ensure that no harm befalls you and your pets. If you have received this email in error, please add some nutmeg and egg whites, whisk and place in a warm oven for 40 minutes. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
At 01:28 AM 06/05/05 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote: snip For years I have struggled with the idea of sexual orientation. I'm currently of the inclination that it doesn't exist objectively. Gay, straight or in-between are, to me, ideas, nothing more. Given the scientific evidence piled up in the last 30 years that's an amazing statement. Keith Henson ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On May 6, 2005, at 6:23 AM, Keith Henson wrote: At 01:28 AM 06/05/05 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote: snip For years I have struggled with the idea of sexual orientation. I'm currently of the inclination that it doesn't exist objectively. Gay, straight or in-between are, to me, ideas, nothing more. Given the scientific evidence piled up in the last 30 years that's an amazing statement. Not when you've lived it. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On 5 May 2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On another list there's been a discussion in the last few days about the findings of science, and particularly how many of us simply accept them without question. Yes. There is no way to avoid having to accept most things. People lack the time and the resources to do otherwise. Since belief in the religion of one's culture is so important, people do devote the time and the resources to it. One consequence is that many have numinous religious experiences. As Roy Rappaport (1) said A numinous experience compounds the emotions of love, fear, dependence, fascination, unworthiness, majesty and connection. It does not have any particular references, but 'is powerful, indescribable, and utterly convincing.' Traditionally, numinous religious experiences were interpreted in terms of a culture's religion. However, communications about numinous religious experiences often fails to cross cultures. In contrast communications about science often succeed in crossing cultures. This is because a scientific communication can also (but does not always) provide a numinous experience. In other words, a scientific communication can be `utterly convincing'. There are three ways that a person gains an undeniable, internal, numinous experience from a scientific communication: * From replicated internal experience This is to say, the listener *replicates the reasoning*. Mathematical beliefs come from this, because people reason. At the same time, internal experience includes dreams, visions, and personal revelation. Many religious beliefs are confirmed by revelation. Mathematics is transcultural because people from different cultures follow the same process of reasoning and come to the same conclusions. But people from different cultures who each have revelations often interpret them differently. * From replicated observation This is to say, the listener *replicates the observations* Astronomical observations and old-fashioned biology are examples. The key is that the person himself or herself makes the observations, and understands how they are made. Otherwise, the `observation' is simply a report by another: another case of _replicated hearing_. In addition, the person must also reason that there are no better alternative interpretations of the observations. * From replicated action This is to say, the listener *replicates the experiment*. Again, a key is that the person do the experiment and not let another do it. These three methods are successful because the person's own experience is undeniable. By the way, two other ways for gaining belief are: * From replicated culture For many people, this is the background of all their beliefs. Actually, this is a subset of _replicated hearing_, but people do not remember when they heard. It is `knowledge that they have'. * From replicated hearing This is the dominant mode for establishing a new belief, since it means going by authority. (It includes hearsay.) These two ways do not cross cultures. Dave Land is surely correct when he says that I bet that listening to authorities is evolutionarily favored ... After all, the children who didn't, died. But I am not so sure that ... listening *critically* to authorities even more so. As far as I can see, in periods during which nothing much changed during a generation, many could survive by accepting what they were told. As for definitive statements: any human decision regarding evidence involves a judgement. Is the evidence weak, suggestive, or strongly suggestive? Your judgement may be strong enough to bet your life on, but it is not an absolute. When the word `evidence' is used, should others presume that the writer means `suggestive' even if he or she uses absolute language? -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc (1) `Ecology, Meaning and Religion', Roy Rappaport, 1979, North Atlantic Books, p. 217 ISBN 0-913028-54-1 paperback ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
Robert J. Chassell wrote: Dave Land is surely correct when he says that I bet that listening to authorities is evolutionarily favored ... After all, the children who didn't, died. But I am not so sure that ... listening *critically* to authorities even more so. As far as I can see, in periods during which nothing much changed during a generation, many could survive by accepting what they were told. How often did things change significantly over the course of a generation? How many iterations would there have to be for listening *critically* to authorities to be selected for to the point where over half the population had the traits for the tendency to do so? Have we reached that point yet? If not, will we ever? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
On Fri, 6 May 2005 00:01:30 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote > As to fear being present with anger in all cases ... that's a very > interesting idea, and my inclination is to agree with your > assessment. If anger is (in essence) a response to perceived threat - > - any perceived threat -- it could be easy to support the suggestion > that there's at least *some* fear there as well. Behind anger, I think there's always a "should." That guy shouldn't have cut me off on the freeway... Wes shouldn't have been killed in Iraq... I shouldn't have wasted time arguing about politics. And so, the opposite of anger is acceptance, in my view. I'm not saying that fear and anger don't are wrong... it is appropriate to be afraid of the lion and to be angry when he eats our friend. Fear and anger themselves call for acceptance. In another thread, I said I wanted to get out of the "kill the other guy's argument" mode of talking about things here. Another way to say that is that I want to figure out how to talk about difficult issues -- politics, religion, etc. -- while accepting others where they are. Hard to do, which pisses me off. Okay, that was a joke, that last thing. Mostly. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
Erik Reuter wrote: > * Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > >> Thanks for reminding me: the other pathetic logical fallacy that >> you >> frequently engage in is ad hominem attacks. > > Awww, poor Dave. Can't think. Likes to whine. Aw. Eating more bran might help with that attitude, dude! xponent Peniscephalic Entropy Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
From: Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . . Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 14:01:00 -0700 As I see it the problem is not religion; it's undisciplined, irrational thought -- and that is as prevalent *outside* of any church as it is inside. If you want to have a productive discussion with a religious person, attack the faulty thought process rather than its results. That's a mouthful right there, let me tell ya. A little on the idyllic side of the fence considering the set human precedent, but such sublimity usually is. Besides, it bespeaks the will to carry forward through our own fallibility, which, in and of itself is a precedent that we try and set, again, through the veil of our own fallibility, to ultimately persevere in the struggle to ensure that the institutions we leave behind are better than those willed to us by our forefathers. Or something like that... Warren, you are a noble beast! -Travis _ Powerful Parental Controls Let your child discover the best the Internet has to offer. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
Robert J. Chassell wrote: > As far as I can see, in periods during which nothing much changed > during a generation, many could survive by accepting what they were > told. On 6 May 2005, Julia Thompson asked How often did things change significantly over the course of a generation? In the paleolithic? Sometimes frequently, sometimes not. That is the problem. As far as I know, during glacial periods things were often predictable. It was warm in the tropics, cold by the edge of the glaciers. Weather was predictable, since storm systems tended to move along paths between the hot and the cold, and the space between the two was not so wide as now. So you would have two bad storms every seven days. (Incidentally, along with the convenient phasing of the moon and of women's menses, this suggests to me that a `week' become seven days. Besides, seven is prime and seven objects but not fourteen can be perceived by most adults ... ) On the other hand, during interglacial periods, the area over which storm systems move becomes less constrained. Weather becomes less predictable. How many iterations would there have to be for listening *critically* to authorities to be selected for to the point where over half the population had the traits for the tendency to do so? I don't know whether `half the population' needs to gain these traits or whether a small portion (say one in 12 or one in 100) is all that is necessary. The key is that people not kill such minorities when nothing happens for 50 or 100 generations. Otherwise their traits will be lost. Of course, during predictable eras, people can laugh at the critical thinkers: as in, `There he goes again, suggesting that this next storm might be light. Hah! As grandma said, it will be as bad as the last one.' In any event, listening critically is a complex behavior. Consequently, it is likely to require a bunch of genes to make it possible. Perhaps the behavior is only expressed within an appropriate culture and people in other cultures die. This would mean that those with the capability would be invisible much of the time, so the others do not need to avoid killing them. This is a `one the one hand, on the other hand' response ... Put another way, perhaps a more useful question is Which contemporary societies provide enough support to those who listen critically to authorities and which adapt well because of their critical comments? Did the US government adapt well enough -- that is to say, learn and act differently -- to changing conditions during the latter 1930s and early 1940s? Did it adapt well enough during the latter 1980s and early 1990s? Which societies are adapting well enough to the period since 2001? -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical QuestionsRE:RemovingDictatorsRe:Peaceful changeL3
- Original Message - From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 4:26 PM Subject: Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical QuestionsRE:RemovingDictatorsRe:Peaceful changeL3 > On May 12, 2005, at 2:09 PM, Dan Minette wrote: > > > It was the one written collectively at a retirement village filled > > with > > Catholic one legged seamen. > > There are hints and suggestions of lewd jokes right under the surface > of that statement, but I can't quite seem to get hold of one. > > Perhaps it'll come to me in a while. Not a lewd joke at all, if you google, you will find that it was written by the Peggy Parish. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE:RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
At 05:13 PM 4/26/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: >> It depends on how you define imminent. Sanctions were in imminent >> danger of being lifted > >If sanctions were in imminent "danger" of being lifted, how did we manage to >start a whole war there? Seems to me that it's a given that we had the >capability to keep the sanctions in place even without international >cooperation, since we managed to go much, much further than just sanctions. > >Isn't this a bit ridiculous as an argument for war or imminent danger? We had >to take extreme measures because the less-extreme measures that *we* had in >place were in "danger" of ending? If we could go to war without U.N. >approval, we sure as heck could keep sanctions in place without U.N. approval. > All this argues for is keeping the sanctions going, to prevent the danger >from Iraq from *becoming* immiment. I am pretty sure that this is not true. What is true is that in any event, the US did not impose multilateral sanctions on Iraq. The UN Security Council did so. During the late 90's and early '00s there was a *serious* movement led by France, China, and Russia in the UNSC to lift sanctions.This led up to Colin Powell proposing "smarter sanctions" at the UNSC in 2001. Moreover, I believe that these sanctions required periodic renewal.. if in fact periodic renewal was required, then France, China, or Russia could have vetoed the extension of the sanctions. At any rate, even if periodic renewal was not required, France, China, or Russia were more than free to unilaterally decide to abrogate the sanctions, and could use their veto on the UNSC to avoid any consequences for this.You may recall an incident in the early part of this century when China was caught violating the sanctions by selling anti-aircraft equipment to Iraq. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE:RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
At 08:12 AM 4/26/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: >On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 08:19:18 -0400, JDG wrote > >> The problem with the above is that when a child needs to get a permission >> slip for an activity, the child doesn't "seriously consider the opinions" >> of his or her parents, the child gets, well, *permission.* > >That's the point! Bush was saying that if the United States sought other >nations' participation in the decision to go to war, we would be acting like a >child, submitting to other authorities, disallowed to think for ourselves. We >can't do that because we're a grown-up country, not a child. > >International relations cannot be modeled as a set of parents and children, so >Bush and Cheney's use of the metaphor was wrong. But it was politically >clever because the truth in the metaphor makes the whole statement seem true. >Advertisers do this all the time -- say something true that is irrelevant... >and say it again and again. > >The falsehood isn't *in* the metaphor, the falsehood *is* the metaphor because >it implies that serious consideration of other nations' wishes would reduce us >to the status of a child... which is baloney. It was not reasonable to reduce >the whole question of how we cooperate with our *brother and sister* nations >to "asking permission," since that is a context of submission, not >negotiation. There you go again, conflating "serious consideration" with "asking permission." As best as I can tell Nick, yours and Dave's arguments requires the non-existence of people arguing that UNSC re-authorization was a *prerequisite* for Gulf War II. In fact, as you well know, there were a *great*many*people* making this argument. Why do you continue to dismiss the possibility that Bush was arguing against precisely this line of argumentation, and continue to insist upon conflating "asking permission" with "serious consideration"? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE:RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 21:57:07 -0400, JDG wrote > What is true is that in any event, the US did not impose multilateral > sanctions on Iraq. In light of we have actually have done, can there be any doubt that we could have and would have imposed *unilateral* sanctions? Are you saying that despite the fact that we were willing to go to war regardless of international support, we might *not* have been willing to impose sanctions any more? We'll bomb your cities, invade your country, occupy and run it... but we won't impose sanctions? Why not? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE:RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 22:26:55 -0400, JDG wrote > Why do you continue to dismiss the possibility that Bush was arguing > against precisely this line of argumentation, and continue to insist > upon conflating "asking permission" with "serious consideration"? I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you saying that the metaphor "a child asking for a permission slip from an adult" is apropos to the United States seeking consent of the United Nations? You seem to be saying that it is not a reasonable metaphor to describe the relationship between our country and the U.N. If that's so, then how can you defend Bush and Cheney's repeated use of the metaphor? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE:RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
- Original Message - From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 10:48 PM Subject: Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE:RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3 > On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 21:57:07 -0400, JDG wrote > > > What is true is that in any event, the US did not impose multilateral > > sanctions on Iraq. > > In light of we have actually have done, can there be any doubt that we could > have and would have imposed *unilateral* sanctions? > > Are you saying that despite the fact that we were willing to go to war > regardless of international support, we might *not* have been willing to > impose sanctions any more? We'll bomb your cities, invade your country, > occupy and run it... but we won't impose sanctions? Why not? Perhaps because we thought that sinking French, Russian, German, and Chinese ships was a bad idea? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
That Feeling Of Annoyance, was Re: Permission Slips
At 05:54 PM Friday 4/29/2005, Travis Edmunds wrote: But what if that feeling of annoyance is singular to you? -Travis No danger of that on this list: it's clear to anyone who observes the list for a week (or less) that feelings of annoyance about _some_ subject or other are almost ubiquitous . . . The Subject May Change But The Annoyance Remains The Same Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Metaphors we live by (was permission slips)
At 07:06 AM 4/30/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: >"Permission slip," has meaning that is independent of the >sentence in which it was used. Call me crazy here, but isn't that "independent meaning" one of, oh I don't know, "getting permission"? JDG - "Serious Consultation" <> "Getting Permission", Maru. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: List manager ethos (was Re: Permission Slips)
On 5/1/05, Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 08:31:38 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote > > > Out of curiosity, why is it that Erik and a few others are able to > > get away with incessant windbaggery and insulting behavior? > > Free speech. > > More seriously... our list managers (Julia, myself and Dave Land as backup) > have a very strong prejudice toward tolerating words that might be construed > as violations of our guidelines, such as the personal attack one. That > prejudice is extremely strong regarding such words directed at me, precisely > because I have pretty much total control of the list (except that ultimately, > the list can move off my servers). > > It's a moral presumption against the use of great power, on the tiny scale of > the list. > > I suppose I could try to wield my mighty powers to seek some sort of Pax > Arnetta... > > Nick Ah, but empires inevitably collapse, leading to an interregnum lasting a thousand years... So it is probably better you didn't. ~Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: List manager ethos (was Re: Permission Slips)
From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: List manager ethos (was Re: Permission Slips) Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 20:42:42 -0700 On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 08:31:38 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote > Out of curiosity, why is it that Erik and a few others are able to > get away with incessant windbaggery and insulting behavior? Free speech. More seriously... our list managers (Julia, myself and Dave Land as backup) have a very strong prejudice toward tolerating words that might be construed as violations of our guidelines, such as the personal attack one. That prejudice is extremely strong regarding such words directed at me, precisely because I have pretty much total control of the list (except that ultimately, the list can move off my servers). It's a moral presumption against the use of great power, on the tiny scale of the list. I suppose I could try to wield my mighty powers to seek some sort of Pax Arnetta... http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/admin.htm -Twavis _ Take charge with a pop-up guard built on patented Microsoft® SmartScreen Technology. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: List manager ethos (was Re: Permission Slips)
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick Arnett > Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 5:43 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: List manager ethos (was Re: Permission Slips) > > On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 08:31:38 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote > > > Out of curiosity, why is it that Erik and a few others are > able to get > > away with incessant windbaggery and insulting behavior? > > Free speech. > > More seriously... our list managers (Julia, myself and Dave > Land as backup) have a very strong prejudice toward > tolerating words that might be construed as violations of our > guidelines, such as the personal attack one. Is that why, after several months and roughly a dozen messages, My posts are still being moderated? Even though your own guidelines (or was it the administrativia?) say that only the first few messages of new members are moderated, to prevent spam? What is it you fear, Nick? Ghosts from the past haunting you or anything? It sure looks like it. God -- wondering if this (and My previous message today) will ever make it to the list. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: List manager ethos (was Re: Permission Slips)
Maru Dubshinki wrote: > On 5/1/05, Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 08:31:38 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote >> >>> Out of curiosity, why is it that Erik and a few others are able to >>> get away with incessant windbaggery and insulting behavior? >> >> Free speech. >> >> More seriously... our list managers (Julia, myself and Dave Land as >> backup) have a very strong prejudice toward tolerating words that >> might be construed as violations of our guidelines, such as the >> personal attack one. That prejudice is extremely strong regarding >> such words directed at me, precisely because I have pretty much >> total control of the list (except that ultimately, the list can >> move >> off my servers). >> >> It's a moral presumption against the use of great power, on the >> tiny >> scale of the list. >> >> I suppose I could try to wield my mighty powers to seek some sort >> of >> Pax Arnetta... >> >> Nick > > Ah, but empires inevitably collapse, leading to an interregnum > lasting > a thousand years... > So it is probably better you didn't. > > ~Maru This list was in such an interregnum just a couple of years ago. Internet years are different, but it did feel like a thousand years at the time. xponent List Interregular Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: List manager ethos (was Re: Permission Slips)
At 10:43 AM Monday 5/2/2005, God wrote: God -- wondering if this (and My previous message today) will ever make it to the list. They did . . . but I guess that those list members who don't believe the sender exists will never read them . . . :P -- Ronn! :) "People who want to share their religious views with you almost never want you to share yours with them." -- Dave Barry ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE:RemovingDictatorsRe:Peaceful changeL3
- Original Message - From: "Deborah Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 3:54 PM Subject: Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE:RemovingDictatorsRe:Peaceful changeL3 > > Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > From: "Deborah Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Ohdear. This is what happens when you send > > > before reading all posts in the relevant thread... > > > > > > Debbi > > > who is nevertheless _mostly_ certain that she was > > > the first to point out Their Tealnesses... ;) > > > IIRC, there was a children's book that referred to > > them: "Amelia Bedilia Meets Their Tealnesses." > > Cite! I demand that you back up your ridiculous > assertion with *hard evidence*! Or withdraw it > posthaste! > It was the one written collectively at a retirement village filled with Catholic one legged seamen. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE:RemovingDictatorsRe:Peaceful changeL3
On May 12, 2005, at 2:09 PM, Dan Minette wrote: It was the one written collectively at a retirement village filled with Catholic one legged seamen. There are hints and suggestions of lewd jokes right under the surface of that statement, but I can't quite seem to get hold of one. Perhaps it'll come to me in a while. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
At 10:23 PM 4/25/2005 -0500, Dan M. wrote: >> At 07:37 PM 4/25/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote: >> >> You are conflating two separate things: >> >> a) "serious consideration of the opinions of other nations before >> >> acting" >> >> and >> >> b) "agreement from other nations before acting" >> > >> >"Tomayto, tomahto, potayto, potahto. Let's call the whole thing off." >> >> Well, I think we have reached an impasse here. >> >> I see a gaping distinction between the above two propositions. You see >> them as being the difference between potato and potatoe. >> >> As such, I guess that we don't have any common ground to stand on on this >> issue. > >In his response to me, though, that wasn't his point. We agree there is a >difference between 1 and 2. I think that David was accurate in pointing >out that the use of the words "permission slip" intentionally brought up >images of what kids bring home from school for their parents to sign. I >think that is the pointalthough the song could throw one off. :-) Dan, It looks like you are missing the point too. Dave's original point was as follows: "The president's use of the phrase "permission slip" in the state of the union address was carefully chosen to call up visions of the United States as a child, having to go begging some adult nation for a kind of "hall pass." That vision was intended to be so repulsive that to suggest that the US must seriously consider the opinions of other nations before acting was to reduce our great nation to childishness." The problem with the above is that when a child needs to get a permission slip for an activity, the child doesn't "seriously consider the opinions" of his or her parents, the child gets, well, *permission.* To use Dave's formulation (which I don't entirely agree with, but I'm making a point) - The President's use of the phrase "permission slip" in the State of the Union address was carefully chosen to call up visions... intended to be so repulsive to suggest that the US must get the *permission* of other nations (particularly, China, Russia, and France) before acting was to reduce our great nation to childishness.Dave very cleverly, however, substitted "seriously consider the opinions" for "getting permission" in order to score cheap political points. "Seriously consider the opinions" sounds fairly unobjectionable, "getting the permission of China, Russia, and France before acting" sounds much more objectionable to a lot of people - and that is what Bush was railing against - the very significant block of people who argued that the US should not launch Gulf War II without the approval of China, Russia, France, and the other members of the UN Security Council. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
