Re:virus: Ann Coulter\'s Rant/Rave

Date: Tue Jul 30 2002 - 17:15:13 MDT

On 30 Jul 2002 at 16:35, rhinoceros wrote:

> [Joe Dees]
> 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
themselves, or...
> [rhinoceros]
> So, are you sure you are not an extremist? That would make sense if
you take into account that you are arguing for neat solutions.
Ann Coulter is on one side of me, and Scatflinger and Hermit is on the
other. Since there are positions on both sides of my own, I do not fit the
definition I profferred.
> [Joe Dees]
> ...or to be wishy-washy weak-willed Charlie browns lacking the courage
to say what the extremist thinks they REALLY believe (which is, of
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.
> [rhinoceros]
> Didn't you leave out "or memetically infected members of the CoV"
As middle-of-the-roaders? Such people would seem to have reached a
more balanced (as opposed to extremistically unbalanced) position.
> [Joe Dees]
> 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
and that they typically manifest paranoia concerning conspiracy
as to why the entire world does not accept the obvious truth of their
position with welcome, open arms.
> [rhinoceros]
> "why the entire world does not accept the obvious truth of their position
with welcome, open arms." Hey! You were supposed to argue *for*
international policies, not against.
I have supported some and criticized others, and sometimes both at
once (when I have detected both desirable and undesirable
components coexisting within single policies).
> [Joe Dees]
> 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;
> [rhinoceros]
> As reasonable and liberating all this may sound, there are other aspects
to solutions enforced by war. I am not going to talk about theories on
society works, based on present and past human activity and blah blah.
Just consider this imaginary statement: "I'm telling you school is good
you, so I killed your evil father who wouldn't let you go to school. Now,
In the vast preponderence of cases in Afghanistan, the parents are
delighted that their female children can now attend school.
> [Joe Dees]
> mistakes are made in wartime, and we have apologized for and
attempted reparations for them
> [rhinoceros]
> That would make no difference to me if a bomb came out of nowhere
while I was typing this.
But it might for surviving members of your family and friends.
> I noticed you have been using *we* in several threads in connection
with USA's international policies. I am curious about the mentality that
would make someone chose this word. I use "they" for the government
of my country, and I was thinking: Would I say *we* if the government's
choises coincided with my beliefs? Maybe -- I have heard people doing
that. Would this make me feel affirmed? Is it possible that I would
my beliefs if I needed this kind of affirmation?
> Of course, it is possible that you are not just an ordinary Joe.
I say 'we' because all americans are considered targets by Al Quaeda
as outlined in Bin Laden's fatwa, and all americans were targeted in the
9/11 attacks. It did not matter to Bin Laden which americans were killed
in the WTC, although he was going after military brass in the Pentagon
attack and Dubya in the abortive attack on the White House; he just
wanted to kill as many as he could.
> ----
> This message was posted by rhinoceros to the Virus 2002 board on Church of Virus BBS.
> <;action=display;threadid=25860>

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:17 MDT