From: Robbie Lindauer (robblin@thetip.org)
Date: Sun Aug 31 2003 - 11:20:39 MDT
On Sunday, August 31, 2003, at 08:18 AM, Greg Burch wrote:
> Gimme a break! I'm sorry, I know you're going to say I'm "controlling
> the
> dialogue," but I can tell we're so far apart that any dialogue would
> require
> more effort than I'm willing to devote to the task.
Right, because you'd have to get involved in a detailed analysis of a
very difficult to defend position.
Just the facts - Did we drop bombs on civilians in Iraq and Afganistan?
Did we HAVE TO? Is it okay to drop bombs on people if we don't HAVE
TO?
> I'll simply note that
> you're post is a classic example of pomo focus on "text"
So now I'm a "pomo, unoriginal, contentious, opponents of the law,
obstructionist, un-informed, un-happy, half-hearted, minority,
un-civil, extreme, offensive, alarming, silly, rhetorical,
fairly-left-leaning, waaay over the top, grossly partisan"
> pomo ideas is correct.
Thanks for actually asking. No, I'm a naive realist - all there are
are the facts, nothing but the facts, all of them objective and
objectively knowable and provably so.
But I am aware that controlling dialogue with value-laden terms is an
effective rhetorical method used consistently by the right wing to
control the context of dialogues. This is why such conversations tend
to drift quickly into how unoriginal, contentious, uninformed, unhappy,
half-hearted, uncivil, extreme, offensive, alarming, silly, rhetorical,
left-leaning and liberal anyone who doesn't believe everything they
hear on Fox News or Ayn Rand said is.
When confronted with someone who's aware of this technique an attempt
to abort the dialogue usually ensues immediately after the
name-calling. You were good, you name-called and made the attempted
abortion. Good work.
I'm happy to abort too if we can agree on the factual points I made in
my original post to which you found it important enough to respond:
1) We dropped bombs on civilians in alarming numbers, killing upwards
of 6,000 Iraqi Civilians and an as-yet unknown number of military
personnel. I don't have the numbers on Afghanistan handy, but I
believe them to be as significant and we can bring out the FACTS of the
matter on this too.
2) It's wrong to kill people needlessly.
3) We didn't HAVE to go to war in Iraq, no one forced our arms, we did
it "pre-emptively" to use the official language for the action which
means "we went because some subset of 'we' wanted to".
4) That subset is profiting immensely from the current action both
immediately in terms of military and military-related expenditures and
long-term in terms of higher national debt and resulting future
taxation increases. Haliburton's expected revenues from the Iraqi war
is upwards of 1.6 Billion. Cheney still takes approximately $1M/year
from Haliburton as a "CEO Emeritus".
> I'd also have to work very hard to keep from being drawn into an insult
> match;
That's what I've been trying to avoid by just pointing out what you
SAID. Those are your "rhetorical" words up there, not mine.
> I checked out your ISP and found that it was promoting Chomsky, Jim
> Hightower and Michael Moore.
My ISP? Check the whois on it. If you want to see REALLY uncivil
conversations, check out the forums there!
http://www.thetip.org/forum.php
don't only read Ferguson and Keynes, that's a very limiting perspective.
> I'm afraid we're so far apart that the effort
> to remain civil is wasted. Why don't we just agree to disagree and
> leave it
> at that?
I guess I just can't let the factual parts go. I'm willing to ignore
the name-calling. But if extropianism is "Pro-life" in the
non-abortion sense, then isn't it against needless killing? Then isn't
it essentially against hawkish, imperialistic foreign policies?
Doesn't the PNAC describe itself in precisely these terms?
Still genuinely not trying to get into a name-calling match.
Robbie
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Aug 31 2003 - 11:33:31 MDT