Re: Who are you to "take it easy" on Samantha?

From: Mike Lorrey (
Date: Wed Oct 31 2001 - 08:34:26 MST

Samantha Atkins wrote:
> Mike Lorrey wrote:
> >
> > If she has, she surely has not displayed it. In her latest 'asshole'
> > post (I was not aware that frequent use of that word was a sign of a
> > rational person), she directly ignored my point, as she has in most of
> > my other posts, primarly, it seems, because she has absolutely no
> > rational basis to oppose my arguments in those instances but was too
> > arrogant to admit it.
> As you have said many times, "I call them like I see them". I
> have attempted to engage you in rational dialog only to recieve
> insults, ignored lines of reasoning and so on much too often in
> return. I apologize for calling you an "asshole" because it is
> below my standards to do so. But I do not apologize for
> pointing out that you are behaving badly and certainly have
> earned no right to call me to task.

I do ignore much People's Party Policy lines taken right out of the
playbook. They've been debunked so repeatedly the world over that they
are really not worth my time here. Much of your 'lines of reasoning' is
constructed on false assumptions, which I have pointed out many times in
the past, which I do not need to repeat over and over. Your
moral/cultural relativism has likewise been debunked/discredited
repeatedly on this list.

It's not hard to make a rather straight determination that our system is
objectively better: take Afghanistan, allegedly the most pure islamic
state in many centuries, is a wasteland of fear, repression, violence,
and hate. Then take the US, which provides a higher standard of living,
liberty, and happiness to more people than any other country in the
world, where even the most downtrodden homeless outcasts have more going
for them than 90% of the rest of the human race.

The Islamic world does not hate us because we don't live up to our own
ideals all the time. Those that claim so are constructing a straw man.
No society ever lives up to its ideals. That is why they are called
ideals and not standards. The islamic world wants us to become the sort
of country the Christian Reconstructionists want, they are a sort of
christian Taliban in that way. The islamic world hates us because we
illustrate by contrast how poorly the islamic world has lived up to its
own ideals AND standards. That we, the infidels, do a much better (if
not perfect) job of it grates their sense of honor greatly.

Those who claim we don't support democracies in the muslim world are
liars. Turkey has been a longtime friend of the US, we have frequently
supported it against the claims of Greece, and it has maintained a
democracy far more fair and stable than most others in the world. Kuwait
is also democratic. It has an elected Parliamentary system where the
Emir acts much as a 'lord protector' much as Oliver Cromwell did in the
British revolution. We also supported the development of democracy in
Algeria, until, of course, it was threatened by the election of islamic
fundamentalists who wanted to dismantle that democracy.
> >
> > Samantha and others claim that the US needs to start listening to the
> > rest of the world, and shaping its policy more in line with the way the
> > rest of the world thinks it should be. Since Samantha opened the
> > argument to profanity, I shall continue it with a hearty "fuck that".
> >
> > The US did not get where it is today as the preeminent economic,
> > military, and cultural power in the world, while concurrently having the
> > most free society on earth, by doing things the way others thought we
> > should do them. We did it OUR way, the way we knew in our hearts to be
> > best, not just for us, but for the world, and as a result, the world has
> > gotten through the age of nuclear brinksmanship in far better shape than
> > I'll bet would have occured if any other power had been in our place.
> > Ideas like individual liberty and democratic/republican values are the
> > pre-eminent ideas in politics around the world today specifically
> > because of us. This didn't happen by us letting others tell us how
> > things should be.
> >
> Tell it to Allende. What often did not act as we know is best.
> Period. To claim otherwise in light of what has been unearthed
> of CIA operations alone cannot be called anything other than
> dishonest. We haven't given a rat's ass for the democratically
> elected leadership of other countries in too many instances if
> that leadership would not play ball with us and whatever
> interests (general commercial) we supported. Or do you think
> the CIA was prohibited from being in the assasination business
> in 1981 for no reason at all?

Allende sought to end the free market system in his country and usher in
a socialist/communist government.

Democracy is not the only ideal. Free markets are the other, for they
are the most democratic of systems. The democratic election of despots
can and should be opposed by all liberty loving people, whether their
name is Hitler, Moussolini, Ortega, Stalin, or Allende.
> > Those around the world who want to start telling us how things should be
> > done do so specifically because their own power is threatened by our
> > principles and influence. They are supporting terrorism specifically
> > because it is the best technique designed to date for getting large
> > masses of civilians to question their principles, at a cost that is
> > smaller than most any other.
> >
> That is an outrageous claim. Here is an alternative. When you
> are oppressed by the biggest bully around and you have no means
> of fighting back on the bully's terms, some will use whatever
> means they can find to strike back.

Straw man. The assumption that we are the biggest bully is a false one.

> It is not our principles that we practice in our own country
> that are the problem. It is that we do not export them well and
> often do not act on them when it comes to other countries. We
> must question whether our practice abroad is in keeping with
> those principles you and I both admire. I believe that in many
> cases it has not been so and is not so today.

Why is it that cultural relativists like yourself who claim there is no
objective truth are so militantly insistent that we act so objectively?

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:16 MDT