From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Wed Jun 18 2003 - 15:38:13 MDT
On Sunday 15 June 2003 17:16, Lee Corbin wrote:
> Harvey writes
be.
> >
> > I disagree. There is no tiny kernel of truth. None of these people have
> > ever given any indication of supporting the enemy.
>
Personally I consider "the enemy" all that is unextropic and works toward
greater human chaos and suffering. But designating "the enemy" is itself
sometimes questionable as far as extropic value is concerned.
> Well, of course by "the enemy" you mean Saddam Hussein. I'm
> sorry that I haven't followed the list so closely recently
> that I have a good feeling for how excessive the accusations
> have been.
>
> > The attacks are baseless slander. They are based on these people
> > not jumping on the bandwagon to support the war and the president.
> > Any liberal, democratic or peaceful position is being lumped in as
> > being anti-American. This is incorrect.
>
> But doesn't it all depend on how you conceive of what your
> proper duties are as a citizen? Is it not also highly parameterized
> by circumstances? I'm sure that you can think of many historical
> situations (or simulations) in which sufficient danger would exist,
> or in which sufficient fealty would be the norm, that it would be
> true that "if you are not with us, then you are against us"?
>
No. It is baseless slander to accuse people of supporting persons and groups
there is no evidence, except trumped up questionable reading into statements
or absence of same, that there is any such support. That is so regardless of
what one beliieves are one's "duties as a citizen". It is obvious that the
situations at hand are certainly not a place where "if you are not with us
you are against us". Frankly I could care less whether there are any
(doubtful) circumstances where such binary thinking might be correct. That
is not the question.
> I readily understand that you cannot take insults lying down,
> and that you need to defend what "anti-American" would mean to
> you (not that you and others have neglected this). I myself
> doubt the utility or the wisdom of such provocations---yet if
> you could (and I don't know---perhaps you've tried) get those
> people to explain more concretely what they mean when they use
> such terms, perhaps the disagreements would be loftier.
>
Why is the burden of effort on those who are the victims of the slander? The
slander itself is against the principles of this list.
> > These are our friends being accused of war crimes. This is
> > excessive. What is going on here?
>
> What is going on is differing conceptions of what a country
> or a nation should be, and the proper amount of allegiance
> that is due. ;-) Your cries of "slander" are just as much an
> overreaction as theirs of "war-criminal", or "traitor", though
> perhaps they did start it. Sorry to keep beating on my theme
> here, but it's the underlying assumptions that need to be
> argued about, not the surface phenomena.
No, I do not believe that is what is going on. Actualy real slander is being
done and the quotes are misplaced. Point out that it is slander to call any
of us a "war criminal" and so on is not in the least on the same level as
using those terms against those who oppose some of this country's recent
actions. In this country it is also not a matter of debate whether simply
disagreeing with the actions of the government and saying so makes one
anti_US or unpatriotic much less a "traitor". The freedom to do so is one
of the defining principles of this country. The "other side" has continued
to ignore this and simply repeats their baseless attacks and accusations over
and over again. I have had enough of it.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 18 2003 - 15:47:08 MDT