On 30 Jul 2002 at 13:16, rhinoceros wrote:
> [Joe Dees]
> Rationality is most typically found at the mean between two extremes.
When people are as irrationally extremist as this woman, just on the
extreme, their stance is equally deplorable.
> I admit I never understood the concept of the "mean between two
extremes" as anything more than a non-destructive code of conduct.
Usually, extremist views are closely related to oversimplification, i.e. not
taking into account all the significant issues. Only in this sense I can
accept that this article is in the opposite direction from other "extremist"
views posted here, which were taking into account much more.
> Clearly, the person who wrote that article didn't even think (or pretends
she didn't think) about the practical consequences of what she is
to realize that the results would be an even greater disturbance of her
It is in the nature of extremist that they cannot consider their own views
extreme; therefore they must consider middle-of-the-roaders to be
extreme themselves, or to be wishy-washy weak-willed Charlie browns
lacking the courage to say what the extremist thinks they REALLY
believe (which is, of course, identical to what the extremist him/herself
believes), or to be either ignorant dupes of a malevolent propaganda
conspiracy or, indeed, an active and knowingly collusive part of that
conspiracy itself. It is, thus, a distinguishing mark of an extremist
position that all alternative views are to be found on only one side of it,
not on both sides, and that they typically manifest paranoia concerning
conspiracy theories as to why the entire world does not accept the
obvious truth of their position with welcome, open arms.
> [Joe Dees]
> Like in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo, where we liberated a Muslim
people being butchered by a neonazi thugocracy? Like in Somalia
we were killed for attempting to feed a people and defend food supplies
against warlords who seized them in order to use hunger as a terror
weapon? Like in East Timor, where we applied the pivotal pressure on
Malaysia to halt the religious pograms and allow secession and free
elections? Like in Kuwait, where we repelled a foreign invader and
restored a country to its inhabitants (although not to democracy - that
will, I hope, come in time)? Like in Afghanistan, where we have wrested
a country from a fundamentalist theocracy allied with an international
terrorist conspiracy and made representative government possible once
again? The US has restabilized much more than we have destabilized,
but they receive no credit and copious blame. This is hardly balance.
> All those and some more. I won't get into restating any of that as the
local people would see it, because that would ruin my already poor
The only argument I can offer is that I wouldn't be sympathetic to
who may bomb me in my armchair because they don't like the president
the dictator of my country, and call me a collateral damage of all things.
If the people that one is attempting to bomb are those who execute
women for attempting to learn to read and man for playing music, and
who fire at you from behind human shields of which you are not aware,
it is more understandable, even by Afghanis; mistakes are made in
wartime, and we have apologized for and attempted reparations for
them - and it's not as if we intentionally flew planes into buildings
packed with clueless civilian citizens simply pursuing their everyday
lives, citizens who were the targets rather than collateral damage.
> PS: I said that extremist views are closely related to oversimplification,
i.e. not taking into account all the significant issues. There is also
"justified" extremism", when there aren't really any other significant
Spoken like a true Goldwater acolyte.
> This message was posted by rhinoceros to the Virus 2002 board on Church of Virus BBS.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:16 MDT