From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sun Jun 15 2003 - 14:57:40 MDT
Harvey writes
> Spudboy100@aol.com wrote,
> > Harvey Newstrom asked:
> > > <<On a personal note: You probably think I am anti-George
> > > because of my frequent liberal-leaning rants. I am not sure
> > > that I have ever felt the need to oppose bin-Laden in this
> > > group. It never seemed to come up or be disputed among us.
> > > Do you therefore believe I am a bin-Laden supporter?
>
> > For example, if your [you] are indifferent on Bin Laden, or a supporter,
> > or sympathize with his cause, that will make a difference on how
> > I view your attitude on other matters. Furthermore, anyone who
> > was neutral on Osama, or favorable towards his kith and kin,
> > are people who, by definition, are mine enemy.
>
> This is that binary thinking again. There are a lot of shades between
> disinterest and neutrality and support! I am against Osama. But I don't
> see much I can do about it. Ranting on the Extropians list doesn't seem
> useful.
Of course ;-) it is hard to say what *is* or is not useful!
But one extremely clear consequence of polarization has always
seemed to me that the partisans on one side see no need to attack
the other side's main target. Why should they? They feel that
it's already being done (perhaps overdone) by their adversaries.
(This applies to *any* discussion, I contend, where sides are
taken---not just to the political ones.)
One bad thing about not giving lip-service in the denunciation
of Hitler (or whoever), is that it creates doubt in the minds
of the other side about where one stands. Yet sometimes---when
I do pay such lip service---some will think that I am posturing
or not being true to form! (How can we win?)
> It is outrageous and slanderous for you to therefore label me an
> enemy of the state and treat me as such.
I'll let Mitch answer, but we're all in trouble if the likes
of Harvey Newstrom are enemies of the state!
> People on this list have been accused of being communists,
> anti-American, traitors, terrorists, enemy combatants, etc.,
> simply because they don't agree with some aggressive posters.
> These are serious charges, some of which carry the death penalty.
Well, we should inspect the tiny kernel of truth in such charges,
if any such truth there be. For example, I had difficulty *while
the war was on* (a brief time indeed), not thinking of American
dissenters as treasonous---I even provided definitions of "treason".
This, IMO, *should* give rise to sincere questions about patriotism
and loyalty, and what roles they truly ought to play, according to
the visions of the various posters. Thankfully, such discussions
have taken place, (and I'm even still interested in the topic, though
perhaps that should warrant a separate thread).
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jun 15 2003 - 15:07:23 MDT