Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Daniel Mandic on 9 Oct 2006 13:59 T Wake wrote: > Your two options ("Stay the course" or "concede") are generated by > you not the Extremists (Grocery Store). There are more options - for > example, try other courses. > They should expand their Democracy, at least. Now, it is Anarchic, IMO. Best Regards, Daniel Mandic P.S.: or a coalition... for the first :)... just imagine: nobody goes to vote, then...
From: Ken Smith on 9 Oct 2006 14:03 In article <hsuWg.4640$NE6.3613(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: [....] >Indeed. It is my observation that it is exactly this sort of xenophobia >which is leading to much of the overreaction to terrorism. Bush may be >fomenting it with his rhetoric of fear, but that rhetoric wouldn't work if >people weren't so ready to distrust and believe evil of those who are >different than them. For all I know, the terrorism itself may be partly a >product of the terrorists' xenophobia. Back when we clubbed dinner over the head for a living, it made sense to distrust anyone that looked different. Members of a different troupe ere likely a threat. We as a result have an instinct to distrust those that differ. We need to recognize this human weakness. We also group things to make them easier to think of. This is an advantage in many cases because it lets us get quickly to the right answer. In many other cases, this grouping works against us because we make the wrong groups. These needs to be taken into account when thinking about the motives of others or even our motives. If two murders seen on the news have bushy eyebrows, the public may group all people with bushy eyebrows and think of them as murders. This would be an error, but it is much easier to correct if you see its source. It seems that right now we have this sort of problem with terrorist and Islamic. Without knowing they are doing it people are making a subconcious grouping. Although they logically understand that there is a difference they are working against their own instincts. I think it would help a lot if they saw nonterrorist islamic folk on TV or even better in real life. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: lucasea on 9 Oct 2006 14:10 "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message news:7Nmdna-JXZt14rfYnZ2dnUVZ8qudnZ2d(a)pipex.net... > > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > news:D8tWg.12748$6S3.9188(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net... >> >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message >> news:uOCdnaYSs6Z5oLfYRVnygg(a)pipex.net... >>> My biggest issue with the UK government at the moment stems on the way >>> we are throwing away rights and freedoms I grew up to take for granted >>> (possibly part of the problem). >> >> I disagree--I think most Western nations view those rights as (to use a >> word from one of our founding documents), inalienable--as they should. > > I agree. In the UK we have an assumption of rights which is not seriously > different from the Iron Age. There have been periods in our history where > insane governance has removed or rescinded these assumed rights - but this > is supposed to be an enlightened age. And, to get on my high horse for a just a moment longer....this is *exactly* what our Constitution was designed to do--prevent insane governance from tossing out peoples' rights because of the bogeyman-du-jour. (Sorry for the horrendous phrase coinage there.) >> Until recently, the Republicans liked to trumpet about how precious >> peoples' rights are, because there are millions of people who have fought >> and died for them. Then, along comes a President who makes a few >> major-league blunders, and decides the only way to distract from those >> blunders is to pull a Chicken Little stunt, and hope that people are so >> afraid that they will fall to their knees worshiping him and his cronies. >> All of a sudden, the government is demanding that people give up their >> rights, as part of the attempt to keep the "sky is falling" illusion. I >> just don't buy it. Either those rights are sacrosanct (I happen to >> believe they are) or they're not--in which case the government has no >> right, ever again, to ask people to die to preserve those rights. They >> can't have it both ways, and as a populace, we're fools to let them! > > I agree, and I would add that not only should they never ask people to die > to defend them, the government should never try to "force" them on to > other nations. > >>> Some of it is done in the name of "National Security" which really does >>> annoy me. >> >> I agree. Thoughout human history, appealing to fear and anger has proven >> one of the most effective techniques for getting power over other people. > > Shamefully so. It is, to an extent, human nature. However, that, in fact, was the basis of Ben Franklin's famous quote. People who hand trade their hard-won rights for a little security are the worst kind of cowards. >>>Some of it is done in an insane move to appear to be "liberal" and >>>"multicultural." >> >> I'm not sure I understand--can you give some examples? I tend to support >> this sort of thing more than fear-mongering. There is much more mixing >> of cultures in the world today than ever before. Plus, as was guaranteed >> to happen at some point, there is for the first time since the Industrial >> Revolution, a move toward levelling the vastly disparate standards of >> living across the globe. I think it's simply the way of the world in a >> highly technological society, and I think it's important to resist the >> urge to fight it. There will be some pain (maybe a lot of pain), but in >> the end, it will lead to a better, more peaceful world. > > Sorry, I will try to make it clearer. I am not opposed to > multiculturalism, I think it is the only way for societies to survive and > expand. > > The problems we have in the UK (IMHO obviously) are that we are heading > towards legislation which (for example) bans jokes made at the expense of > religions because it may cause offence. This strikes me as playing into > the hands of the fear mongers. Ah, I see now. I can't think of an instance of Political Correctness reaching the extent of legislation in the US yet, but I'm sure someone will point some out to me. However, I lay this more at the feet of people/groups that are too eager to take offense at what someone says. It's a hard issue, though, because I also feel that everybody has a responsibility to respect others' thoughts and actions and choices. I think the answer is that everybody needs to be just a tad more sensitive to the consequences of their own actions and words, including on other peoples' feelings, while at the same time being a tad less sensitive to the consequences of others's actions and words. A noble aim to strive for, at the least. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 9 Oct 2006 14:18 "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message news:3tKdnV9bh7LRH7fYnZ2dnUVZ8qudnZ2d(a)pipex.net... > > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:452A6228.3D02953D(a)hotmail.com... >> >> To be honest an apology should be left to the Pentagon in this case. >> Arguably >> the captain should have been court-martialled. He had apparently been >> behaving >> like a bear with a sore head all the time the Vincennes was stationed in >> the >> region. > > I am not sure it wasn't the Captains place. Maybe, but at the very least, the US as a nation owed Iran an official apology. > Saying they "did it by the book" is far from sufficient. And, in fact, implies the need to rewrite the book. To not do so tacitly implies that it is OK to kill a large number of another nation's civilians in a time of peace, for no good reason. Let's pray that no other nation decides to turn those table on us. Oh, wait. They already did. > If a group of people I was in charge with did something wrong, it would be > upon me to apologise on their behalf. The President should have _also_ > apologised on the Nations behalf. > > When I was in the Army (at around the same time) it was drummed into every > single person, at all ranks, that you were responsible for your actions. > If you were ordered to fire and it was "wrong" you were not to fire. It > was that clear cut (and has resulted in soldiers going to jail - > admittedly not many of them). I'm surprised. That sounds like a remarkably un-military way of doing things. I always thought that the chain of command was to be immutable, for good reason. Eric Lucas
From: Eeyore on 9 Oct 2006 14:21
John Fields wrote: > On 08 Oct 2006 19:48:02 GMT, "Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic(a)aon.at> > wrote: > > >John Fields wrote: > > > >> That doesn't mean he's wrong, though. > > > >;) He's not wrong and you are Right. Is this the tactic? > > --- > Go back and read it again. > > As I recall, instead of debating a poster's claims, Eeyore was > claiming the poster was insane in order to try to discredit the > poster and, thus, his claims. > > I merely pointed out that being insane doesn't automatically > preclude also being right. I think suggesting that Islam wants to destroy our bridges, roads, computers and manufacturing plants among other items suggested is a pretty reliable indicator of some kind of mental illness. Graham |