From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sat Jan 29 2005 - 14:08:42 GMT
MSH:
> 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.
Gee. Who would have guessed reading was restricted to "history as
premises" and thinking to "logical analysis." Anyway, thanks for
clarifying. Reading someone's mind is not one of my better skills.
> 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.
OK. Now I get it. A statement like "There are no absolutes" is cognitive
dissonance.
> 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.
Last time I looked, Nicaragua was a democratic republic after throwing off
the Sandinista communist government in 1990. I don't know about you, but I
consider that a quality outcome of the 80's conflict when the U.S.
rightfully fought against the establishment of a communist satellite in
the Western hemisphere.
> 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.
As you suggesting that we should not have attempted to free the slaves
because of "unknown residual effects?" As for no blueprint, it seems to me
that just criticizing supposed wrongs isn't sufficient to persuade others.
Constantly harping on negatives hardly inspires anyone to do better. If
you expect people to change, you must give them a vision of a better
situation and the ways to accomplish that. At least that's what I learned
in Psychology 101.
> 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?
No. To correct your muddled history I'm saying Bush demanded the end to
Afghanistan as a haven for terrorism including but not limited to
delivery of al-Queada members to U.S. authorities.
> 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.
Whenever someone misses my point, I blame myself not the reader.
Platt
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 : Sat Jan 29 2005 - 14:06:33 GMT