Posted by John on September 13, 2001 at 23:44:03:
In Reply to: I love the evil freedom posted by Pastor Steven on September 13, 2001 at 21:02:31:
Suffice to say, this freedom is the lesser of evils in my opinion.
: Huh? Freedom is NOT an evil, lesser or greater. Freedom is a blessed privilege we have that many fought and died for. If you think freedom is evil, why not go live in Iraq or Iran or Cuba? You should be snug as a bug in a rug.
I said "this freedom". it is not unheard of for people in this country to recognize that the freedom that is offered is freedom in one sense, while there are oppressions in other senses. There is inequality. There is injustice. This is hardly a utopia. Therefore I maintain that this freedom is the lesser of evils. Yes it is a type of freedom, but things could be better. You tend to spin things in ways I never intend them, and doubtless you will say that is because they are written in ways I didn't take them. But truth is you are hardly a linguist, nor a grammatical expert and have on occasion been known to misunderstand by inferring your own conclusions on statements which may or may not conclusively indicate what you thin kthey did. i refer to other emails between us where I was also accused of such things until we spoke face to face, fought, and cleared the air.
: * * * * * * *
: : The enlightened comment was in quotes as an indication of sarcasm. If there is an emoticon to indicate, I don't know it. The reference was to the fact that...etc...
: * * * * * * *
: It was NOT in quotes! Anyone can read your original post and see there are no quotes in your statement. I added the quotes myself to emphasize the terminology which I found arrogant. You did nothing to indicate sarcasm. You wrote:
: : This is going to sound strange coming from me, but let us all remember that we are Christians called to love and peace. Even toward those who injure us. Above all, now is the time for we who think we have an enlightened sense of our God to stand firm against the vengeful calls for retaliation. etc etc
: What quotes, John? There are no quotes.
You have me there. I didn't look at my original post, but used yours. I can't argue against that error.
You were not being sarcastic; you were as serious as a heart attack.
But this however is an inference on your part, unless you claim to have special insight into my intentions or thoughts. I was being sarcastic with the comment.
: If an invasion of Afghanistan is necessary, I will support it, as will the vast majority of Americans. The combined deaths in Pearl Harbor and D-Day combined do not equal the death toll we have suffered in one morning, and they were innocents, not military. If you think military action is inappropriate, I fear you do not have a realistic grasp of this situation. If it was your child or wife or parents killed in the attack, you would feel differently. If your fellow rescue workers next to you had lost their lives trying to save victims, you would feel differently. If you were digging out hundreds of pieces of body parts for days, you would feel differently. If you had to talk to each of the hundreds and thousands of mourners about their lost loved ones and listen to them cry in desperate misery, not being able to do anything or say anything that lessened their pain, you would feel differently. If you lived your whole life in fear of these kinds of attacks in Israel, you would feel differently.
The American community and the international community may support it, and it may happen. And I may feel differently in another circumstance. I still don't think unmitigated military action that will affect other innocents, or action based on righting the wrong done to "America" as a nation that enjoys some special priviledge over others is appropriate, even under the justification of ending terrorism. America wasn't concerned with being so protective last week.
: * * * * * * *
: : Here I think our political views differ at the root level. I am not a nationalist. That means that I do not recognize, or at least try not to, the political affliations that run along national lines. Therefore, a "US" blunder is nothing for me to get upset about any more than anyone else's. I choose not to define myself along these national lines and the philosophy behind it is extensive. Suffice to say I am not alone in this view, although I may appear that way in this arena. And I am a citizen of this country. But what concerns me more is humanitarian justice and not national status, or politics. I understand that this is not how the international real world context works. But unless people hold to it, the situation will never change. (sorry, a little private soapboxing) And it has carried the Red Cross a along way, as well as many other organizations.
: * * * * * * *
: You distort the issue seriously here, implying that I and those who don't share your views are nationalists. I am not.
How can you say you are not? you support the actions of this nation. You have spent this whole thread argueing in support of this nation and national politics. That IS Nationalism!
Once again, you redefine the opinions of those you don't agree with. You devalue the views of those of us who support the International coalition to combat terrorism with implications that this "at the root level" is U.S. nationalism. You degrade and distort our character and our ideals.
And what you do is not just as devalueing, distorting, or degrading to those who hold my ideals? Why are your views so more right, or so more vlaid than mine? I assure you I am not alone in my thinking. You may not know many people who share this worldview, but they do exist.
I certainly am not talking about "national status or politics", and I am not upset to admit "U.S. blunders". I am talking about preventing terrorism world-wide. The International community is rallying together, not because they love America per se, but because this threat endangers all humans everywhere.
And again it endangered them everywhere last week as well. he ony difference is that NOW it has occured on the Holy American soil!
Nothing is more humanitarian than seeking to prevent this kind of mass murder in the future. It has been made abundantly clear the terrorist community plans to escalate these attacks even more in the future, and all your talk will not bring back the thousands that will continue to die if we do not act preemptively now. You apparently have no effective argument against such logic, so you resort to labeling our "root level" differences in political views as nationalistic. I am unimpressed.
And I am unimpressed with your arguments as well. I could have predicted this turn in your arguments. There is no doubt you have very good logic. And your rhetoric is nearly unmatched, but just because you argue better doesn't automatically make you right. You twist intentions by playing word games. You take natural ambiguities in the english language and use them to your advantage. And you do it so thoroughly that most of the time people are intimidated by it and give up, or reject you altogether and forget you.
: BTW, don't bother answering that you weren't talking about me. Your words were: "Here I think our political views differ at the root level. I am not a nationalist." You are clearly responding to ME personally. You neatly labeled me nationalist, as if a quick and easy generalization will do for your purposes. Isn't quick and easy generalization the very thing that you are cautioning against in your exhortation to these supposed Muslims-haters who want to stage a war indiscriminantly? How is it you are so guilty of the same thing in your very logic? I am not offended, just unimpressed.
It is far from quick and easy. Obviously by the tone of your other posts you were attempting to show me the error of my thinking. Hence the comments about how my worldview needs reexamining and such. I was pointing out that I come to this argument without the suppositions rooted in nationalistic thinking. Nationalism, as in the philosophy which promotes loyalty and devotion to a nation, especially refering to a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as mopposed to those of other nations or supranational groups. Now the international community may be forming a consensus, but that is a new development since the initial post.
: * * * * * * *
: : : I heard the man speak. President Bush did call for justice (just retaliation!), and he did not appeal to mass indignity. Did anyone else get this "appeal to mass indignity" impression? If so, I must be blind, deaf, and stupid.
: : I know this is just your style of communication and it doesn't personally offend me anymore, but please know that it is possible to perceive the "If so...blind, deaf, and stupid." line as condescending in that it implies that if I held that interpretation, I would be blind, deaf, and stupid.
: * * * * * * *
: No, no... This was not implied. And really, all this sensitivity from the guy who labels me a nationalist! If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen, young man!
And all this personal comment from someone who has told me that it is inappropriate to mix emotional comment in logical agrument. I believe your word for it was, "irrational." Old man!
: * * * * * * *
: : Honestly, I know my politics are not popular and I expected this sort of response from someone. Hopefully this clarifies the issue for any others who may be reading this.
: * * * * * * *
Clarity has left the building.
At least in the mind of one who refuses to understand an opinion which cautions against valid potential flaws in popular thinking and distorts them in attempts to justify the fact that he holds some of the very opinions about which the caution was issued.
: * * * * * * *
: : Why are you guys not jumping in?
: * * * * * * *
: Intelligence? A deep sense of futility?
Futility I agree with, but I would add intimidation at facing the same attack I have recieved.
: They're smarter than me. They're not wasting all this time responding, when it accomplishes nothing. I should follow their example, and devote my expounding and teaching to my job. ;-)
And perhaps I should follow theirs as well and avoid posting anything that is contrary to Steveism n this board ;)