Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#121
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Actually, there are very few shaded of gray. They want to kill us, we
don't want them too. One side will win. Who do you want it to be? That's as necessary as we need to be. If you think that some sort of civilized, rational means of "talking" this out will work, I've got some serious ocean front property in Arizona that I'd like to show you...... Dave Excellent example of binary thinking, Dave. The only two options are 1) trying to talk to them or 2) abandoning all principles when conducting the war. And you say that neoconservatism isn't binary? |
#122
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Let's think about the choices we have. You could be:
A. With us, in that you support the elimination of world-wide terrorism by whatever means necessary. B. Against us, which means that you feel that active terrorist groups killing innocent civilians is acceptable behavior in a civilized world. C. Neutral. You want to hide your head in the sand and pretend the problem will fix itself. So which are you? Dave I'm stunned. Not one of the choices you offered. According to what you just wrote: If I am not in favor of carpet bombing the entire middle East with thermo-nuclear devices (an example of "any means neccessary" to eliminate terrorism), then my only other choice is to declare that active terror groups killing innocent civilians........(as opposed to high tech super powers with thermo nuclear bombs killing innocent civilians)......is absolutely OK. Doesn't work for me. I'm in favor of capturing or killing the individual criminal *******s involved in terrorist activities, by any reasonable means that won't result in our creating far more innocent civilian casualties than the terrorists have already. I'm not in favor of invading our way through a check list of third world countries under the guise of "fighting terrorism". (But I bet you already knew that) Yes, I know that neocons are all about limiting choices. But you guys have a ways to go in this country before you can presume to tell me how I must think, (choice A or choice B). |
#123
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
So doing nothing is preferable to what we're doing now?
Binary. Excludes the possibility of doing anyting "different" than what we're doing now, and assumes that our present course is the only possible alternative to "doing nothing." |
#124
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Which dictionary is the one we should all rely on for accuracy?
John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! There is no one dictionary that is always correct. Binary neocon thinking: A given dictionary will always be right or wrong. Somebody or some thing will have all the unquestionable answers, so the only challenge is to pick the right somebody or something. |
#125
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#126
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#127
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
John H wrote:
On 24 Jun 2004 14:27:12 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote: Which dictionary is the one we should all rely on for accuracy? John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! There is no one dictionary that is always correct. Binary neocon thinking: A given dictionary will always be right or wrong. Somebody or some thing will have all the unquestionable answers, so the only challenge is to pick the right somebody or something. But the M-W is definitely wrong in this case, true? How does one determine which is the right source? Do you just search until you find a source that supports your position? Am I a neocon because I looked in a M-W dictionary? John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! No, you are a neocon because you are a rigid, mindless fool who accepts virtually every line of bull**** the neocons feed you. |
#128
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
But the M-W is definitely wrong in this case, true? How does one determine
which is the right source? Do you just search until you find a source that supports your position? Most people will, indeed, search just long enough to find one source or another that supports their position and hang on for dear life against all evidence or opposition. Those more interested in seeking truth will consider multiple perspectives, drawing comparisons between what others have observed and personal, contemporary observations. The mentally adept often seek out contradictory opinions and examine them carefully for any elements of greater or lesser truth they may contain. The self righteous and intellectually insecure fearfully eschew dissenting ideas. Much depends on motivation. Some want to appear "right" (or righteous) at any cost. Others want to get closer to the unvarnished truth, even if it ultimately requires changing a long-held prinicple or considering a new idea. No single source is an authority on everything. Even dictionaries are compiled and edited by committees that often make arbitrary or underinformed decisions. That is one of the reasons for consulting multiple sources, as the odds of several editorial boards making identical arbitrary or underinformed decisions are rather low. |
#129
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#130
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|