RE: (WAR/IRAQ) Emotional Reactions

From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Thu Mar 27 2003 - 09:25:10 MST

  • Next message: matus: "RE: Tribalism (was: Tragedies of war (was WAR: Apparently the internet...))"

    Michael Wiik writes

    > Lee, why don't you write a book? Call it 'Ascension to Godhood'. Early
    > hypothetical conjectures about the nature of man and the universe would
    > lead to illuminating analysis of folks who think different than you,
    > followed by the condemnation of everything not-you. Then, standing
    > outside of time and space, you conclude with a series of transcendental
    > aphorisms that prove (by your own logic) that your Ascension is complete.
    > I'd buy it (after it comes out in paperback, at a used book sale).

    Having ended your post with these words, well, I *hope* that
    I can take literally all that you write that comes before.
    (Except one or two places of understandable and not-bad-at-
    all sarcasm ;-)

    > Lee Corbin wrote:
    >
    > > I conjecture that reports of American setbacks are received
    > > with gratification by most war protesters. After all,
    > > for those who see George Bush as a greater threat and a
    > > greater enemy than Saddam Hussein, such a reaction would
    > > be practically inevitable. Wouldn't it?
    >
    > 'Conjecture'. I didn't protest, but remain against this war. Since the
    > war is now happening, I hope it ends as soon as possible with the
    > minimum loss of life. I hope Saddam Hussein is removed from power and
    > that some form of at least somewhat representative government takes root
    > in Iraq.

    I admire your logic. Though opposed to the war, you don't
    have any problem with a quick American victory. However,
    you seem to think that this is an easily acquired viewpoint
    for all those who were opposed (often viscerally).

    > I conjecture your conjectured reaction is nowhere near
    > inevitable in the majority of those opposed to this war.

    I'm sorry that my choice of vocabulary is derailing your
    exposition. That word, by the way, is foundational in
    evolutionary epistemology, and makes me wonder if you've
    ever read any PCR (see the Extropian site).

    > > I have no doubts that on this forum a few people do achieve
    > > the desirable state that lies between normal human functioning
    > > on the one hand and hyper-rationality on the other, that is,
    >
    > On this point I have no doubt whatsoever that you can think
    > of at least one.

    Here, I don't know whether to think that you mean yourself,
    which does logically flow from what you have written before,
    or if this is a snide insult where your urge to attack
    my personality has superseded your rational abilities
    after all. Would you clarify if you meant you or me?

    > > I don't really see any difference between American U.S. war
    > > protesters---after hostilities have actually begun---and
    > > traitors.
    >
    > So, people who dare to exercise their first amendment rights are
    > 'traitors'.

    What if the war had been declared? Then, *literally*, they
    would be traitors. Do you have a problem with that? Do you
    know what the word actually means? It means to work against
    one's own country in time of war. By definition, it is one
    who commits treason. Treason is defined as

       1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or
          sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country
          by waging war against it or by consciously and
          purposely acting to aid its enemies.
       2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.

    > Personally, I would consider persons who spit on the constitution,
    > the document our soldiers and leaders are sworn to uphold,
    > to be 'traitors'.

    It shows that you're overreacting a little---you really mean
    those who disagree with your interpretation of the constitution.
    Moreover, your usage is at odds with the conventional usage as
    given above.

    I have known many people of the far left for many, many decades.
    They're not cowards, and are often passionately and ideologically
    dedicated to their causes. I could easily name ten or fifteen
    who wouldn't be fazed in the slightest by an American declaration
    of war against Iraq, but would continue their anti-U.S. position
    tirades just as before. The definition provided above covers
    exactly what they would be doing.

    Well, I consider them to be doing that *now*. Their nation
    *is* involved in a war since last week, yet they work to do
    everything they can to undermine its position, and, unlike
    you, hope against hope that somehow their nation is defeated.

    Lee

    P.S. I realize that you aren't an American, Mike, and that those
    words of course can't apply to you in any case.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 27 2003 - 09:25:24 MST