quote:
Originally posted by Magness:
[QB]
S/C, actually, I am quite interested in the cause(s) and effect of this current situation. However, I have no interest in viewing them as an excuse for 9/11. (I'm not sayign that you are either, although I have heard some who sometimes come pretty darned close.)
The concept of good and evil is not crap. And I generally feel that attempting to turn the world into many shades of gray is often little more than an attempt to excuse one's own or someone else's evil actions by trying to blur the lines between good and evil.
Just curious, what's a "Noddy imitation"?[QB]
When I say good/evil crap – I’m referring to a tendency that I’ve seen far too much of lately, (both on the forum and off it) to categorise actions/people as ‘evil’, and draw a line under that definition which may not be questioned. Full stop, end of story, end of discussion. No questions, no looking at cause and effect...
As I have said many many many times on this forum, people do not come out of their mother’s womb with ‘evil’ written in big letters on their foreheads. If a person or group of people resort to a course of action that is foul and disgusting in the extreme, it is worth while examining the background to that course of action. (And no, I am not excusing the perpetrators by saying that. Just saying that we might learn from what has happened, with a view to doing better in the future.)
That is not to say that I do not believe that actions have consequences. Of course they do. However, a little more understanding on the part of the West, and America in particular, as to just WHY the anti-Western feeling in various parts of the world – I am not just referring to the Middle East here..... would be no bad thing. Dismissing people and events as ‘evil’ is simplistic and discourages and stifles exploration and discussion around the issues raised by the events of September 11th. I’m not going to go into a full blown discussion yet again on the events of 9/11, if you don’t mind, because I’ve said everything I have to say on the subject at least 20 times, and really don’t want to go into it all again. Read some of the earlier threads in this forum, should you be at all interested in my opinion/views on these matters.....
Noddy is a character in an Enid Blyton book (children’s author in England, very popular in the 60s and 70s) as is Big Ears. My reference here was to people who just nod their heads and go along with the status quo rather than questioning.
quote:
Originally posted by Magness:
[QB]Actually, I never question anyone's "right" to say what they feel or question what they want. But conversely, "freedom of speech" (and I'm using this consceptually, not the US Consitution's strict definition) doesn't necessarily mean that a person has the right to speak out against a majority (or a minority) opinion without being challenged.
Perhaps a better way to say this is ... I'm not challenging your right to say what you think. I am challenging what you have said and (what I may be misinterpreting) an apparent feeling that you have the right to speak unchallenged.
Speak on!!! It's actually rather enjoyable to read reasonably well written and well thought out (even if I disagree vociferously).
Fair enough. I’m a writer, amongst other things, - hence the relatively well written posts 
[QB]
I have been speaking out on this forum since I joined, and have been jumped on more times than I can count. In fact, I have ‘left’ the war forum three times so far, in high dudgeon. (I use the word ‘left’ in its loosest possible sense [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img] Believe me, I am not someone who feels she has ‘the right to speak unchallenged’. [img]tongue.gif[/img] I get challenged here nearly every time I open my mouth on any serious topic. And I’m absolutely fine and dandy with that, believe me! Firstly, debate helps me to clarify my views, secondly, it is a useful insight into how the other 4/5ths think/live, and thirdly, it’s fun. I like a free and frank exchange of views, especially if my interlocuter has any kind of a sense of humour!
quote:
Originally posted by Magness:
[QB]S/c, I care plenty about the future. I am an "IT professional". I am not exactly the raving lunatic rabid conservative that you may (or may not) think I am. It's not so much that I am a rabid conservative than I am a "hater" of communism/socialism/liberalism and political correctness. And my autonomic reflex action is that if a socialist or liberal proposes something, then I will oppose it. I don't define "caring" as agreeing with liberals."[QB]
Hmm. I never said anything about a ‘raving lunatic rabid conservative’, so think that might be more your own personal paranoia than any opinion of mine [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img] but if the cap fits...... tee hee.... sorry couldn’t resist....... Tiny piece of advice from Cheetah, - do not put gun to own head...... it is liable to go off and leave the back of your head very messy ... [img]graemlins/bonghit.gif[/img]
Out of interest, what is your definition of a liberal? What is your definition of a socialist? What’s your beef with both? Do you have any concept of why environmental activists do what they do? Do you think being arrested (and putting your working career on the line ) for standing up to ensure that we and our children have a future is just NOTHING? I sometimes think it is a mistake to identify certain actions with a certain ‘type’ of person. Would it not be better to look at the issues clearly, rather than through a haze of prejudices? (Easier said than done, I know. Points of view are necessarily subjective! Or is that one of them there fuzzy liberal concepts......
quote:
Originally posted by Magness:
[QB]I got a real chuckle over this comment!!! CNN isn't 'the world according to America'!!! It's the world according to the US liberal intelligensia. Didn't you know that CNN stands for the Clinton News Network??? 
I'm a Fox News junkie. They're far more balanced. I know that some view them as a right wing network, but those people have been so brainwashed by decades of liberal news bias that anything even a smidge slightly to the right of CNN, ABC, NBC, or CBS appears to be a bunch of rabid fascists. "[QB]
CNN – when I’ve watched it in the past, has looked pretty insular from where I’ve been sat – (ps. to my mind, Clinton is liberal in the same way as Tony Blair is left wing. Ahem.) You mean it’s liberal by American standards. By many European standards, it is not particularly, I can assure you.
When you say Fox News are ‘far more balanced’, I assume you mean ‘in your opinion’. If they have a right wing bias, and you do too, then of course you’ll find them more acceptable. Goes without saying.
I love the Guardian newspaper in England. Why? Because I can read news reports and editorial without foaming at the mouth due to the fact that reporting bias/views expressed are informed by a world view similar to my own, more often than not... hence relatively acceptable, in the main.
When watching news, I ask myself – is it critical? Does it question? Does it present the views of ‘the other side’ (there usually is one...) Does it look at cause and effect – ie. social and historical causes and events (where relevant?). These questions are probably more pertinent than asking if something is liberal or rightwing, as these are terms which mean very different things to different people.