From: Beth Subject: Re: Communism Date: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 08:41 AM T. Max Devlin wrote: > Beth scribed: > >T. Max Devlin wrote: > >> Beth suggested: > [...] > >> >Think for yourselves. > >> > >> But when we do that, we get in arguments with others who think for > >> themselves and come up with different results, leaving us back with what > >> you insist is "blind prejudices". I'm sorry, I just can't agree with > >> your fatalistic view of political philosophy. > > > >No; We'd get into arguments when those people of blind predjuice will not > >rationalise their opinions and instead spout rage and anger (and a healthy > >does of curses :)...a person that truely _thinks_ will NOT spout knee-jerk > >reaction NOR will they be adverse from listening to others... > > Well, I know that, and you know that, but Aaron? He don't know that. Yes; But that doesn't negate what I say, does it? Just because he's ignorant of basic facts like this, doesn't proclude them from being true... My point was, as you yourself have confirmed in this post, that blind prejudice (yes, I've just noticed my terrible spelling error...hey! Spelling Troll! Where are you when I need you? lol ;) is the default - the norm - we all, to greater or lesser extents, work from some sort of blind prejudice towards something...so, the notion of dismissing someone on those grounds would infer that everyone should dismiss everyone else in all cases without question...basically, if you hold with that notion and follow its character to the letter, then you end up doing the bully/ignore stuff that Aaron is doing... Maybe your cause is just and Aaron's not (or, to be fair, as I'm not the "Keeper of the Truth" or anything - so I can't insist that I'm correct, even if I believe so - thus, possibly vica versa...though, I pray that not the case :) but your strategies are very similar...identical, even...so, basically - even though I'd most probably side with you on this matter - by what right to you proclaim yourself to be "correct" and Aaron "wrong"? Do you see what I'm getting at? It is NOT sufficient merely to be "correct" in what you state...you must also be "correct" in how you say it...Aaron may (though, I stress, I certainly don't think so at all ;) be "correct" in his opinion of communists but does that automagically make it justifiable for him to murder people? By such rationale, I could kill all the people in the world and this would - without doubt - eliminate all crime...but, surely, it is NOT justifiable to commit absolute genocide (surely, the greatest crime there is :) to eliminate crime...it's nonsensical... Therefore, is it justifiable to become a fascist (of any sort at all) in order to eradicate fascists? Of course not, because you are NOT eliminating the problem in the slightest...you are just swapping one fascist for another...ironically, you will just be taking the place of your enemies... The end does NOT justify the means...however noble and correct that end is, it MUST be achieved correctly...that is, the "means" are ends unto themselves...they are smaller "ends", so to speak...sub-divisions of the greater "end"... > >You seem a rational person, which is why I find it interesting that you > >suggest that merely because someone holds a "blind predjuice" that they are > >unable to contribute and that they are inherently wrong because their > >opinion does not tally with yours... > > The very phrase "blind prejudice" means what you identify as its > results. If someone's beliefs are based on blind prejudice, they will > not tally with anyone's but those likewise holding blind prejudice. Correct; And have either of us lived in a communist regime? Are we not also speaking from "blind prejudice"? And, even if we weren't on this particular score, then we are surely stating "preconceived opinion and bias" (that's the Oxford dictionary definition of the word...I looked it up :) at some occasion...we cannot know everything, thus, we cannot know that we're right...no matter how much evidence we could muster because that only makes it more likely, it does not make it fact until ALL the evidence - possible or impossible - is gathered... Basically, I'm trying to point out that whether you are right or you are wrong, you are still subject to all the same "laws" as Aaron is...having the "correct" opinion on something is NOT sufficient, you must strive for that ideal or whatever for you to be "correct"...owning the truth does not make you true...knowing what's right does not make you just... For that, you must do as you say...practice what you preach...you cannot oppress those who would oppress others, no matter how justified your cause may be...or you are no better than they... It is possibly the hardest pill to swallow but you MUST turn the other cheek when someone strikes at you...this does NOT mean inaction, as people often mistake it to mean...the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jesus, Gandhi and others were far from inactive, yes? But they could not strike at their "enemies", how their enemies striked at them or they would be NO better than them...you may fly a flag of a different colour but that is NEVER sufficient to be "right" in itself... You must employ this or, by the same rationale that someone may use to dismiss their enemies, will just be applied straight on back at you...an eye for an eye just leaves everyone blind... > Anyone else is, indeed, capable of contributing and may or may not be > correct, regardless of their viewpoint. At least we presume that in > Socratic ignorance; in real life, we know what we like, and so if we are > happy in our situation, we "believe in" the system which defines it. It > is not "blind prejudice" to love democracy, for an American, even if he > cannot elucidate the philosophical reasons he 'does', or 'should'. Yes; And an American cannot truely consider themselves American unless they respect the first amendment and allow anyone to speak their opinions, whatever those opinions may be...let me clarify; There is more than one definition of "American"...a person may consider themselves American by birth in that country...but, then, unlike other countries in the world - as was it's foundation - others born in other countries still are premitted the right to call themselves "American" (the huddled masses ;)...so what is the real definition here? Simple; The American constitution (plus, flag/law/etc. :)...this was one of the main reasons for its conception...an "American" (in their hearts and minds...a =true= American :) is someone who pledges allegiance to the flag, the country and - most importantly - the foundation, the embodiment of that country - namely the American constitution... That constitution absolutely defends the right for anyone to state their opinion and to believe whatever they wish to believe...the freedom of speech and religion... Basically, anyone who does not also defend those rights is severely jepordising their status as an true "American"...by the very definition and spirit of the constitution itself... Now, you may be saying "wait a minute! you're not an American"...quite right...wouldn't claim otherwise...but there is a reason those rights are present and defended in the American constitution because they are basic human rights...as supported - in different phrasiology - under the international human rights convention (which is still not fully respected...sometimes it's hard not to despair at mankind)... > It is, however, blind prejudice for an American to "hate commies", even if > he *can* elucidate the philosophical or teleological justification for > his hatred. The most reason could ever support is disagreeing with > them. Yes. > That disagreement may be sufficient to provoke physical violence > to prevent what may be a violation of what we here in America are "human > rights", but generally simply opening up the borders and allowing > refugees permanent citizenship is a more effective and efficient method, > without the ethical difficulties of justifying murder or war. Unfortunately, you are quite correct...as it can definitely provoke physical violence...which, though it may seem justified to those that commit it, it is truely regrettable for all concern...there _are_ better ways, if only we can obtain them...the basic problem with such tactics is that you cannot beat a belief into someone...you might be able to get their "co-operation" but, deep down, they find you wrong, evil and fascist...you are _only_ delaying the problem, you cannot "cure" non-believers with violence...they'll wait until your guard is down and respond...which you will respond to...ad infinitum...an eye for an eye always just leaves everyone blind... > >thus, your opinions may be of a more > >liberal nature than Aaron's but you employ the same bully/ignore tactics...I > >would definitely agree with your opinions more than Aaron, from what has > >been said, but I fail to see what separates your tactics from his... > > I think you meant 'strategy', rather than 'tactics', or perhaps > "position" versus opinions. His blind prejudice and my rational > evaluation do indeed correspond on some points. As I've said before, > that doesn't mean that his points are constructive, nor that my points > are not. And this is exactly the point I'm trying to make; Why is his opinion "blind prejudice" and your opinion "rational evalution"? I see two sides, yes...but they're on the same coin...Aaron could turn around and make exactly the same case for his arguments...that you speak out of "blind prejudice" brought about by swallowing whatever politically correct BS is about and that his opinion is "rational evalution" of the "real" situation...again, knowing "the truth" doesn't make you right... I'm saying that _both_ of you are not being constructive because you are both plants with their roots firmly in the ground...nothing wrong with being strong and true to your opinions...but if you're too rigid then you're stem will just snap...yes, too flexible and your stem won't even stand up but there's the balance for you... > >This would refute the notion of freedom of speech and religion, would it > >not? > > Certainly not. It would make it impossible for religion to have any > influence or impact on politics, but that is in fact the point. As for > freedom of speech, recognizing Aaron's remarks as categorically > worthless when they are based on blind prejudice does not in any way > impugn his right to say them. Fair enough; That is your opinion. > >EVERYONE thinks they're right...merely dumping some monologue and ignoring > >response will NOT prove you're right...empathise...this person who you're > >talking to thinks you are totally wrong... > > You haven't been talking to Aaron long enough. He doesn't "think" I'm > wrong; he considers it a given, since I disagree with him. Well, I meant "thinks" as in that is his opinion (i.e. it is the thoughts in his head :)...the degree to which he holds that opinion I wasn't trying to hint at... And, yes, I haven't been talking to Aaron long enough but I've seen this sort of "debate" a million times and it's always the same thing again and again...Aaron probably won't listen to you because it's all routine...do you know what a pantomime is? They always have a section in every pantomime where one character says: "Oh no it isn't" and the other character replies: "Oh yes it is" and they ping-pong these responses back and forth - adding emphasis each time...it's meant to be comedic but it bears too much resemblence to most "debate" in this world that I could never find it that funny... > >no amount of "I'm right, you're > >wrong" will EVER change that...in fact, it will only make the situation > >worse because they feel you're forcing them to think as you do...no matter > >how liberal your opinions, to Aaron, you are being a facist and forcing your > >opinions on him... > > Its the other way around, Beth. lol...don't you see my point? It's symmetrical...yes, of course, it's the other way around...it's BOTH ways round...it's symmetrical...that's my whole point...and that's what everyone who employs bully/ignore tactics misses...such tactics can only work - only make sense - when you sit in a priviledged position - outside the fray - when it's non-symmetric...BUT this doesn't actually happen in reality because everyone automatically assumes they're right and assumes that this means they are "better" than the other person...hence non-symmetric...the basic problem here is that no-one is "better" in these cases and it _is_ a symmetrical thing... "Oh no it's not" "Oh yes it is" "Oh no it's not" "Oh yes it is" "Oh no it's not" "Oh yes it is" blah-blah-blah... ad inifinitum...ad absurdum... > Note that it becomes very hard to tell, > when the issue isn't ideological, between the fascists and those who say > their opponents are wrong. Exactly; So let's take pains to make it clear...let's do this thing right, as well as believe the right things ;) > Fascists simply believe they don't need any > reasoning or consensus in order to support their belief. Other than > that, they're only as evil as anyone else blinded by prejudice. In some > respects, better a fascist than a Kulkis. Kulkis pretends his opinions > are based on reason, while a fascist does not (philosophically; > obviously they believe their philosophy has a basis on reason, but the > results of the philosophy are arbitrarily "correct" and any different > opinion is automatically "wrong".) Maybe "better a fascist than a Kulkis" (not a very nice thing to say, though, is it? Odd how your compassion runs out all of a sudden, once someone disagrees with you, eh? > >Note: The above also applies to Aaron, to an extent...drawing lines and > >taking sides makes sense in a war but not in a debate...a discussion cannot > >function properly without giving respect and room to speak for your > >"opponents"... > > Aaron's not really a special case; there's lots of people like him on > Usenet. True. > Drawing lines and taking sides, I'll point out, is even more > necessary in a debate than in a war. Completely false; A debate is a discussion to attempt a conclusion to some matter...often, a comprimise will be struck...it most certainly _isn't_ a battle or a war...in fact, the word "debate" comes from the Roman: "desbattere" which is literally "de-battle" (source: Oxford Concise dictionary + Chambers word origins ;)...that is, _anti-fighting_...it is the act of laying down your stubborn lines in order to secure the need NOT to fight... Of course, many people abuse the notion and just turn a debate into a verbal battle BUT they are NOT really debating...they are just twisting things to their cause...they are doing it all wrong...as it is exactly the act of laying down your weapons and attempting to "undo" an enemy into a friend... Drawing lines and taking sides, I'll point out, is the exact opposite of what a debate is all about...don't confuse the popular abuse of them as merely places to wage verbal warfare as being actually what they are...they are literally the exact opposite of this...the very word "debate" literally says: "stop fighting!!!" :) > Usenet is not a debate, though it often pretends to be. USENET is a forum; But if some form of disagreement occurs (as inevitably it does) and "war" is staged...then, rightly, USENET should hold debate...it should facilitate the means by which the disagreement - the battle - can be diffused... So, yes, USENET is NOT a debate BUT it does not "pretend" anything...at times, there is a need to diffuse argument and, at such times, USENET's place _is_ to facilitate debate... I'm going by the actual definitions of the words here, as well as by reason and logic and what happens in practice...a moderate and accurate enough response for you? ;) Beth :)