|
|
Post by MO on Jan 1, 2005 19:22:45 GMT -5
Would you say you fell into the "category" of Americans I mentioned then - the ones who insult the world, wonder why the hell they hate you, and then make up reasons for your own amusement?
Absolutely not. I don't go on UK websites to insult their culture, their people, policies and leaders. That to me seems pushy and arrogant. It's none of my business how the people vote or run their country.
|
|
|
|
Post by moonotmo on Jan 2, 2005 11:58:08 GMT -5
First off, apologies to MO and Rica; I thought Rica's post earlier was actually made by MO, and ended up confusing the two of you for each other, as well as condensing two quotes you both said into just one under Rica's name, in an attempt to get the post under the forum's word limit. That mistake was pure stupidity on my part.  That makes the first paragraph of my last post completely irrelevant then, but it does make me wonder why you, MO, came across as being so annoyed or frustrated in response. Rica asked me a question, so I answered it for her. I don't go on UK websites to insult their culture, their people, policies and leaders. That to me seems pushy and arrogant. I agree, though doing the same on an American website is hardly any better (- not implying that's what you do, just a hypothetical case). Unfortunately, it would seem that some people blur the line between critisism and personal insults just a bit too much. When one points out problems in a country, whether that be of their own or a foreign one, some people are all too quick to jump to their guns and disregard it, claiming it was an insult, or full of anti-(yournationalityhere)ism. Then there's the fact that different people draw the line between critism and insults at different places, so what's simple critisism to one person could be regarded as insulting by another. It would be nice if everyone would try to look at things objectively for a minute, instead of quickly assuming peoples' intentions are to insult. Personally, I would only regard something as an insult if someone makes bad claims about someone/something without offering any kind of justification. If justification is given, but appears to be incorrect or follow no patterns of logic, debate away. It's none of my business how the people vote or run their country. You're more than welcome to make it your business if you want to. I'm interested in what critisisms people have of my own country, whether they be foreign people or not. |
|
|
|
Post by MO on Jan 3, 2005 22:21:48 GMT -5
Get the plank out of your eye.
|
|
|
|
Post by moonotmo on Jan 4, 2005 10:37:04 GMT -5
Get the plank out of your eye. I've never heard of that expression before. Care to elaborate? |
|
|
|
Post by UncleVinny on Jan 4, 2005 13:31:45 GMT -5
That expression comes from the words of Jesus. It says before you take the splinter out of someone else's eye, get the plank out of your own eye.
It means, before you "help" someone to 'see the light' so to speak, be sure that you see clearly yourself.
It refers to people who give advice, but the advice giver may not have the enlightenment to be giving the advice.
Mmm, a little ironic coming from a site named "Rantweb" since the whole premise here is that people vent their rage at things. Not exactly the environment for peaceful dialogue, but we can try, aye?
|
|
Rica
German Shepard
Posts: 15
|
Post by Rica on Jan 4, 2005 14:23:55 GMT -5
....she thinks you're being hypocritical because you agreed that foreigners shouldn't come to American websites to insult their culture, people, policies, and leaders, while you are doing just that.
All I can say is- DUH
|
|
|
|
Post by moonotmo on Jan 4, 2005 14:35:31 GMT -5
Ah, cheers for that Vinny. ....she thinks you're being hypocritical because you agreed that foreigners shouldn't come to American websites to insult their culture, people, policies, and leaders, while you are doing just that. It would be nice if everyone would try to look at things objectively for a minute, instead of quickly assuming peoples' intentions are to insult. Personally, I would only regard something as an insult if someone makes bad claims about someone/something without offering any kind of justification. If justification is given, but appears to be incorrect or follow no patterns of logic, debate away. Selective reading; gotta love it. Would you find my comments any less insulting if they were made by an American? |
|
|
|
Post by UncleVinny on Jan 6, 2005 13:32:51 GMT -5
Very often "insult" is in the mind of the beholder. Take this fellow who is now being considered for Attorney General of the US. He is being grilled on his writing of legal memos that cleared the way for US forces (through Rumsfeld and Bush) to torture prisoners in Gitmo and Afghanistan. They question him about his pro-torture stance and he's "insulted." Well, sometimes things need to be said. Just today (Jan. 6) the Boston Globe came out with a report showing how the FBI found major prisoner abuses in those places. The reports were released through a lawsuit sponsored by the American Civil Liberties Union. At the same time Military generals are demanding that the US abide by the Geneva conventions. All I can say is Thank God for the ACLU! All I can hope for is that the Attorney General not tarnish the good name of the US.  |
|
|
|
Post by UncleVinny on Jan 12, 2005 13:17:00 GMT -5
Beginning to see something curious here.
There seems to be little dialogue but lots of preaching.
Makes one wonder what the purpose of it all is.
Someone who knows the truth and is completely content with it would find no strong motivation to try to convince people of his views, but would rather be content to instruct those who seek him or her out.
Those who shout the loudest, then, might just be those who are not that sure of their position, and so to make it real, have to rely on pointing out the ignorance of others. So the truly enlighten then would not even feel a need to post on a site like this. So maybe if one feels he knows better, he won't need to preach it, but would just wait for the truth to eventually dawn on the unenlightened.
So if one believes violence is the answer, then that person would need to go through the experience of seeing death and destruction, participating in war atrocities, and then the experience itself would be the preacher. Truth, you see, is much bigger than any lecture, and does not need to prove itself.
Does that mean I should just bow out? I wonder.
NOT! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian on Jan 12, 2005 15:34:07 GMT -5
BlahBlahBlahBlahBlahZzzzzzzz
|
|
|
|
Post by groucho on Jan 13, 2005 3:13:22 GMT -5
BlahBlahBlahBlahBlahZzzzzzzz How DARE you make fun of The Democratic Platform Senator Kerry's debate performance!!!!  Have you no compassion for the mentally challenged? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by TNRighty on Jan 13, 2005 21:52:56 GMT -5
Its great to see the American Civil Liberties Union is fighting so hard for the rights of terrorists. What a joke. The ACLU is one of the most destructive, dangerous, and flat out evil organizations in this country.
The Geneva Conventions do not apply to terrorists. The Geneva Conventions apply to uniformed soldiers fighting under the flag of a sovreign nation. It does NOT apply to terrorists.
Torture? Ask Nick Berg about torture. Oops, its too late, he had his head sawed off by the same people the ACLU is defending.
|
|
|
|
Post by moonotmo on Jan 14, 2005 12:22:07 GMT -5
The Geneva Conventions do not apply to terrorists. The Geneva Conventions apply to uniformed soldiers fighting under the flag of a sovreign nation. It does NOT apply to terrorists. What is a terrorist? Or at least, who are the Bush administration willing to classify as terrorists? Considering that people are willing to label just about anyone a terrorist these days... Torture? Ask Nick Berg about torture. Oops, its too late, he had his head sawed off by the same people the ACLU is defending. So basically, if some terrorists go and torture someone, that makes it perfectly acceptable for the US to go do the same. What a brilliant mentality that is. |
|
|
|
Post by Ian on Jan 14, 2005 12:35:56 GMT -5
I would say that someone who employs violent strategies that are not in line with the Geneva Convention, i.e. killing civilians, and is not fighting for any one nation would be a reasonable definition, wouldn't you? I wish you could debate without degenerating each discussion to the liberal hair-splitting "what is 'is'" argument. I may be wrong, but I don't recollect any U.S. soldiers, even MPs, sawing a Muslim detainees head off. Even the harshest treatment delivered by any U.S. serviceman pales in comparison to the treatment of Western-friendly hostages by terrorists. (See above for definition) |
|
|
|
Post by UncleVinny on Jan 14, 2005 14:09:30 GMT -5
Looks like this Granger fellow, or whatever his name is, is going on trial for abuses at Abu Graib prison. His claim is that he received orders from higher-ups to "soften up" the prisoners for interogation.
Isn't that a clear sign that the persmission for such attrocities came from the higher ups such as Rumsfeld and the lawyer fellow who is now being nominated for Attorney General? So if Granger is guilty, why aren't Rumsfeld and Bush on trial too, for war crimes? Is that so unreasonable?
|
|
