From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Fri Jan 28 2005 - 23:30:12 GMT
On 28 Jan 2005 at 15:54, Platt Holden wrote:
MSH:
> > msh says:
> > I'm no brujo; I claim no mystical powers whatsoever. The
> > enlightenment I speak of can be attained by anyone willing to do
a
> > little reading and thinking...
> platt:
> I see. If one doesn't agree with your notion of enlightenment they
> are by definition non-readers and non-thinkers. Cognitive
> dissonance, anyone?
>
> msh says:
> No. Just that if someone rejects the conclusion of an argument
> without finding fault with the premises or the logic, then they are
> being irrational.
platt:
Nice shift in your premise from readers and thinkers to logicians.
Cognitive dissonance anyone?
msh says:
Gee. I didn't think I'd have to dot every I, cross every T. I would
have thought the corelation between reading (history as premises) and
thinking (logical analysis) is obvious enough to be seen without
further explanation.
msh:
> BTW, your use of the phrase "cognitive dissonance" throughout this
> post indicates that you don't know what it means. This is the
> result of your haste to mimic someone else's writing style, rather
> than provide meaningful rebuttal
platt:
And your use of "cognitive dissonance" is meaningful rebuttal?
msh says:
It wasn't meant to be. Mine was meant to reveal a state of mind
wherein two contradictory ideas are held true, simultaneously,
without any apparent rational discomfort to the believer. Such as
the concurrent beliefs that the US is justified in toppling dictators
and installing democracies, and in toppling democracies and
installing dictators.
> platt:
> How do you "verify" the crimes mentioned? Were you there?
> msh says:
> By reading and corroborating reports from people who were there, or
> hearing interviews, or reading government memos, or, sometimes,
> hearing admissions from officials responsible for the crimes. How
> do you know Custer was killed at the Little Big Horn? If you are
> claiming that we can have knowledge only of what we directly
> perceive, then there is little point in continuing this or just
> about any other discussion.
platt:
Permit me to clarify my question. The question is, "How do you verify
that what you or anyone witnessed was a crime?" To many settlers,
Custer's death by Indians was a crime. To many Indians, it was a
justice. As defenders of modern day terrorism say, "One's man's
terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." The issue is the
definition of crime, not eyewitness accounts. (Of course, credibility
of eyewitnesses can be challenged, as can historical documents,
government memos, and admissions of guilt by those charged with
crimes.)
msh says:
Ok, thanks for the clarification. Let's take one example. During
the 80's, the US led a proxy attack against the democratically
elected government of Nicaragua. Among many other acts of agression,
the CIA mined Nicaragua's Sandino harbor in January 1984, accompanied
by other mine-layings, sabotage of Sandanista communications, and
destruction of an arms depot, all clear violations of International
Law. In April-84, it was disclosed that the CIA had carried out
these actions, and a Senate resolution condemned the mining 84-12.
Instead of responding by attacking Washington, DC, the government of
Nicaragua followed the legal, peaceful path and took their case to
the International Court of Justice in the Hague (popularly known as
the World Court) and won. The mining of the harbors was an example
of criminal “force against another state,” the court said; US support
of the contras “amounts to an intervention of one state in the
internal affairs of the other.”
The response by the USG? An apology for their crimes? Pay court-
ordered reparations? A promise to never be so mean again? Nope. An
exponential increase of criminal violence against the Nicaraguans.
msh said before:
There is never a complete "blueprint" for significant social change.
No one knew what would replace the institution of slavery, if
anything. Does this mean we don't try to abolish slavery? We speak
out against what is wrong, and try different ideas. This bad
argument of "Whaddaya got that's better?" is advanced only by people
who don't want things to change.
platt:
So, you duck the question. OK. I can understand why you don't want to
answer. And by the way, of course they knew what would replace
slavery: freedom.
msh says:
Saying I don't have a complete blue print for major social change is
not ducking. First you stop the immoral behavior, then you tackle
other problems as they arise. And freeing the slaves involved a lot
of unknowns as to possible residual effects on the country's economy
and social fabric, especially in the South Your answer of "freedom"
is typically facile.
msh said:
The one and only OFFICIAL reason for the attack on Afghanistan was
to capture Usama Bin Laden, the perceived "mastermind" of the 9/11
attacks. One of the several serially offered and discounted reasons
for attacking Iraq was Hussein's "connection" to the 9/11
terrorists.
platt:
No. The reason for liberating Afghanistan was to rid the country of
Al Queada who was responsible for the 9/11 attack and by making
democracy possible in that country, build a barrier against Al
Queada's return.
msh says:
Before I spend any more time correcting your muddled history, I need
to be clear on your position. Are you saying that Bush did not warn
the Taliban that Afghanistan would be invaded if they did not turn
over UBL and other al-Queada members?
> platt:
> I see. The people of the U.S. who elect their leaders are not only
> stupid, but accessories to crime. Cognitive dissonance, anyone?
> msh says:
Here you again seem to be saying that the leaders of your government
can do no wrong, always act benevolently, commit no crimes. I'll
ask again: If you believe this, then why do you object so
vehemently to social assistance programs and taxation?
platt:
You make a good point. Forced redistribution of income at the point
of a gun from those who work for a living to slackers and moochers is
a crime in my book.
msh says:
Er, your response is not even close to my point, nor does it come
close to answering my question. Imagine that.
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
-- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com "The shadows that a swinging lamp will throw, We come from nowhere and to nothing go." MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archives: Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 28 2005 - 23:49:49 GMT