Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Fanatics
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Doutdes

Joined: 14 Oct 2005

Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 11:05 am Post subject:

The Bobster wrote:

Extreme positions have value in a political debate among many voices. I am even happy to hear the guy I called a fanatic and quoted above. The value of extreme positions is they help to define where the center is. My own view is that Cindy's voice needs to be heard, and we can all decide for ourselves how much we want to listen to her. I've already decided how much, especially how little, I want to listen to Mark noonan, the other guy I quoted.

I find your philosophy of extreme positions disturbing, to say the least. In fact, I think it��s dangerous too. If I put your head on a block of dry-ice and your feet in boiling water, would you then better understand what a moderate temperature is? You might come out of it thinking that any temperature between 40 and 120 degrees is moderate. Showing extremes of an argument simply enlarges the range of the moderates, often beyond reasonable ranges. It doesn��t clarify, it confuses.

It also creates polar system where it may not be appropriate. The Iraq War is a very good example of this. ��Bring the troops home now�� and ��The only mistake we made is we took Baghdad too quickly�� are both extremist and wrong. You assume the correct answer lies somewhere in between. That assumption limits our foreign policy. Have you considered that we should increase Iraq spending and troop levels to stabilize Iraq? What other options does the US have that don��t lie between those two poles?

The Creationists like your philosophy too. They like to bring out the scientist and the ID theorist as conflicting, yet equal viewpoints. In the end, they convince many people that teachers should ��teach the controversy.�� One is peer-reviewed science, the other isn��t, but the conclusion is to teach both because it is the ��moderate�� answer. When we polarize an argument between two answers, people assume the correct answer is in between, when it actually is one of them. You even do this with Cindy Sheehan. You first state that she is holding an extreme position, but that position is becoming the mainstream. Even if 80% of people agreed with her, would it remain the extreme or would it become the moderate viewpoint?

Lastly, it prevents self-examination for liberals. We can remain assure that we do not discriminate against class, race, or sex because we are not as bad as the extremes. It paints the non-rapist as a good guy and the quiet racist as open to diversity. When Americans question the treatment of detainees, we compare ourselves with Saddam Hussein, the Nazis or Pol Pot. Certainly the US is not as bad as they are, but should we be using them as a measure to judge ourselves? Rosa Parks recently died and white people will continue to pat themselves on the back that racism is a thing of the past, because legal segregation is over. Extremes blind people from seeing their privilege.

The Bobster

Joined: 15 Jan 2003

Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 11:07 am Post subject:

bigverne wrote:

Quote:

While we're at it, tell us some more about why you are more comfortable with the BNP than with "multiculturalism,"

Why don't learn to read, you sanctimonious arsehole.

"You sure got purty mouth," bigverne.

That's a line from a Hollywood movie, offhand I think it's from Ruthless People, and it's spoken to Danny DeVito by a guy in the holding cell inthe scant few hours before his lovely white ass is removed from that place by the lovely white lawyer he keeps on retainer ... yeah, the context is different, but the underlying concept is not so far off.

The jail you live in is in your own mind. You are welcome to it, but the rest of us prefer the world as it is. We invite you you to join us here. Take my word for it, the air is a little cleaner than down there in your dank cell.

Quote:

I said that I found the BNP less 'distasteful' than some so called 'moderate' Islamic groups, who are far more dangerous than the BNP. I never once said I was more comfortable with the BNP than multiculturalism, nor did I say I supported them.

I don't see such a big difference between "more comfortable" and "less distasteful," but if you say it is a large gulf of difference I will take your word for the moment. I do recall that several asked you to if you would repudiate the BNP and your replies were far more lukewarm than anything you had often said against Zarqawi and Osama.

Quote:

you claim the ones you oppose are the mainstream and average ones among the Islamic world

The second class status of women is mainstream in the Islamic world. Freedom of conscience is non-existent,

Sorry to break it to you, but a lot of women in America and England STILL feel second-class due to the way society is structured. I do not defend the evils of Sharia, but your point is a mute one - frankly, you come off as a chauvanist masquerading as white knight whenever you bring up this point. Are you aware that women rose to higher cabinet-level positions in Iran before anyone ever heard the name of Condoleeza Rice? Are you aware that prior to "liberation" NO woman ever had to hear a scarf unless she wanted to, but now, oh how odd, it seems a lot of them feel unsafe unless they are covered? Yes, you are aware, because it has been pointed out to you in the past.

Quote:

as is real tolerance of religious minorities and freedom of speech.

I get letters from people back home who are afraid to write to their Congressional representatives in opposition to this war because after the Patriot Act they can be put on a list that prohibits them from getting on an airplane and never be told why or even that they are on the list until they try to get on a plane, and this is from people referring to wanting to write tp Nancy Pelosi, one of the few senators with an open stance angainst Buish's war. From everything I've read, the ACLU and others, this is an irrational fear, but fear does not have to be based on reality in order to be effective, and in fact it's far more effective if it is not.

Quote:

You can hide your head in the sand and say that this is not mainstream Islam, but it is, and there is no getting away from it.

You are a dreamer and a purveyor of nightmares, and I have never seen you post a source to support your ideas trhat was not tinged by hate.

Quote:

"multiculturalism," which you view as pernicious but is simply a real-world approach to recognizing that the world is a big place but getting smaller, and we we have to deal with that.

I disagree with multiculturalism as a political ideology and not as a lived reality. I believe, basically, that when in Rome, you should do as the Romans.

These are two sentences that simply do NOT fit in the same paragraph. Clue, offered at no charge to the cluesless : Rome was a despotic dictatorship except for a small fraction of its existence, and the rest was bread and circuses, feeding the citizens and the unwashed masses by means of tribute from conqured and subjugated lands.

Yeah, I get teary-eyed every time I see Russel Crowe pretend to be Maximus and talk about "the dream that was Rome" before he dies mythically and erroneously (um, history tells us the real person of that name died in the first 20 minutes of Gladiator and the rest is a screenwriter's fantasy, though a good one) but the point is, you might want to choose your cliched metaphors more carefully next time.

Quote:

Multiculturalism as government policy seeks to fit people into different cultural groups, which inevitably leads to group conflict. I prefer an integrationist model based on shared values and shared nationhood. Basically, if you want to come to my country and carry on living as if you were still in Karachi, you are not welcome.

Multiculturalism does not seek anything like what you say. It asks that people accpet each other's differences and learn, both about the other person and inevitably about themselves. It is not unlike the psycho-spiritual journey most of us expats go through as we try to live for more than the space of a vacation in another country, not just in the foreign country as a tourist but IN the country, among the people living their lives.

The fact that Westerners who have not made the choices we expats have find this difficult is not hard to understand. The way the world is changing and becoming, though, it is the kind of mindset that will be necessary for human survival in the future.

Quote:

I've yet to see you agree with anyone yet who is not a very clear racist

I have agreed with many people who are not 'very clear racists', and I find such slander cowardly and pathetic. If you want to come out and accuse me of being a racist, have the balls to say so, and make sure you can back it up with evidence. However, I have demonstrated here before that you don't actually know what racism means, which allows you to throw around the term with reckless abandon. It is idiots like yourself who have effectively devalued the word.

We are all very intgerested in your views about the BNP, bigverne. Please expound on your thoughts about them. From what I have read, as a humble Yank, they are exactly in step or perhaps one or two further than David Duke and the militia groups hiding with their caches of guns up in Idaho and Montana, except that in your enlightened pinnacle of democracy that once graced the world with colonialsm that the sun never did set upon - while I'm at it, let's thank England also for instituting the "peculiar institution" of slavery in America that we are still trying to deal with ... except, as I was saying before I allowed myself a moment's privelage to rant, that in your enlightened and wonderful beacon of freedom and democracy, it seems that the BNP (which would be considered virulent and dangerous hate group where I come from) is it seems, "a legitimate party."

I believe you have said that. And am I wrong?

They are a fringe, radical hate group and I'm happy that they can march and go out in public so people can see what they really are. And I'm happy that I can point to them and and then point your statements of finding them "less distatsteful" than the identical extremists among Islam who voice similar hate. I'm happy because unless you have rational and clear explanation for finding groups such as this any "less distasteful" than Al Queda, I can't see why anyone here would ever find time to listen to anything you say again.

EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005

Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 12:14 pm Post subject:

The Bobster wrote:

I love when TUM tries to talk about Cindy Sheehan. Let's note how he and EFLtrainer have decided to talk about her on a thread designed for that purpose - which is not to mention her once.

Apparently still nursing your wounds. Unfortunate.

bigverne

Joined: 12 May 2004

Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 2:18 pm Post subject:

Quote:

"You sure got purty mouth," bigverne.

I do not often resort to insults but when people misconstrue my words it is very irritating and dishonest. I said that I found the BNP less distasteful than certain muslim groups, in the same way that I might find Kim Il Sung less distasteful than Hitler. You then turned this into 'you are more comfortable with the BNP than multiculturalism', which was nothing near what I said.

Quote:

I do recall that several asked you to if you would repudiate the BNP and your replies were far more lukewarm than anything you had often said against Zarqawi and Osama.

Why should I repudiate something I have never supported. I don't support the BNP, and have never said so. However, I am once again forced to point out the absurdity of comparing known mass murderers to far right politicians who have said nasty things about foreigners. No doubt you will portray this as 'supporting' the BNP, but if you cannot see the absurdity of such a comparison then you really are beyond hope.

Quote:

but a lot of women in America and England STILL feel second-class due to the way society is structured.

And there you have it folks! In Islamic countries, women may suffer 'honour killings', be denied basic education, access to most professions and have their testimony in court count for half that of a man, but hang on, what about the glass ceiling in the West!! Your moral equivalence is beyond parody. I shouldn't really be surprised. After all, this is the man who compared protests over the Life of Brian to a death sentence against Salman Rushdie, and a few abortion extremists to the world wide scourge of Islamic Jihad. It is you who is trapped inside a prison, unable to see the world for how it is than how you would wish it to be. Don't be afraid Bob, open your mind!

Quote:

Are you aware that prior to "liberation" NO woman ever had to hear a scarf unless she wanted to, but now, oh how odd, it seems a lot of them feel unsafe unless they are covered?

You prove my point. This was allowed to happen precisely because Islam was suppressed. Now that wonderful ideology has been freed from its constraints, women are back in the veil and Christians are fleeing for their lives. This Islam is pretty swell huh, Bob. For some reason your President seems to think so too, so I guess you two do have something in common.

Quote:

I get letters from people back home who are afraid to write to their Congressional representatives in opposition to this war because after the Patriot Act

Moral relativism alert 2!! Two young Christian girls were recently beheaded in Indonesia and hundreds of churches there have been burnt down. Millions of non muslims have been slaughtered in Southern Sudan. It is illegal in many muslim nations to commit 'apostasy', and to preach other religions. Many Christians in Egypt have been subject to forced conversions. Under Pakistan's blasphemy laws Christians have been threatened with the death penalty. But hang on, some of your liberal friends back home are scared (and you admit with little reason) to write to their Senators!! Who are we to criticise countries that would kill you for renouncing your religion! You really are a joke.

Quote:

You are a dreamer and a purveyor of nightmares, and I have never seen you post a source to support your ideas trhat was not tinged by hate.

A good thing to do when you are losing an argument is to question the other posters motives, or best of all, label them as 'hateful' and 'intolerant', even though this in no way disproves their point. I have posted many, many links and sources to support my arguments, so you must have me confused with someone else. But then again, do I really need to show you evidence that democracy, women's rights and freedom of speech are mostly absent from the muslim world. Only someone as chronically deluded as yourself would challenge such obvious truths.

Go back into your dreamworld Bob, it's much more comfortable there. All cultures are equal, Islam respects human rights, freedom of speech and freedom of conscience. If ignorance is bliss, then you must be one happy b@stard. Keep it up mate.

bigverne

Joined: 12 May 2004

Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 1:01 am Post subject:

Quote:

I'm happy because unless you have rational and clear explanation for finding groups such as this any "less distasteful" than Al Queda

Once again you show you can't read, although you do reveal your warped morality. The BNP are a bunch of white nationalists. They want to end immigration and send non-whites back 'home'. Some of their members are holocaust deniers. Al-Qaeda are a murderous organisation that is responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocents, wants to annihilate Israel and wants to subjugate the world under Sharia.

So, certainly the BNP is less distasteful than Al-Qaeda, unless you can give me a 'rational and clear explanation' for why they are equally as repugnant.

desultude

Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Location: Dangling my toes in the Persian Gulf

Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 3:22 pm Post subject:

sundubuman wrote:

I think what we are all witnessing is the total breakdown of the traditional left. The traditional East Coast media stranglehold on the media has been totally blown to pieces by the Internet. It was smalltime pajama bloggers that blew the cover on CBS' attempted smaer piece with forged documents on the eve of the election.

The ivory towers have been stormed The democrats can't convince blacks that Republicans are racists, despite their attempts. Unions are now more likely to be white collar government workers who vote Democrat to protect their own taxpayer subsidized pensions. Women are freeing themselves from the mental shackles of feminism to the shock and dismay of the Maureen Dowds of the world.

It all adds up to an increasingly bitter and delusional Left. The right, even after decades of being marginalized by the coastal elites, seems rather content to watch it all.

Really? I actually don't think the blacks in the United States need the Democrats to convince them about Bush:

Quote:

Bush Approval Hits New Low Among Blacks
News Report, James Wright,
Afro American Newspapers, Nov 10, 2005

President Bush has the lowest rating among Blacks of any president in recent memory, registering a scant 2 percent, according to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. The poll had a margin of error of 3 percent, which means that Bush's approval rating among Blacks could be as high as 5 percent or, as some humorists have noted, as low as minus-1.

The low rating among Blacks is part of an overall drop in Bush's approval rating. A Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that 60 percent of Americans disapprove of his handling of his job and 39 percent approve.
http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=2b1571f0304fe193c82fdd2d8cbf3d93

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2005 5:49 am Post subject:

EFLtrainer wrote:

The Bobster wrote:

I love when TUM tries to talk about Cindy Sheehan. Let's note how he and EFLtrainer have decided to talk about her on a thread designed for that purpose - which is not to mention her once.

Apparently still nursing your wounds. Unfortunate.

Indeed.

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2005 5:53 am Post subject:

bigverne wrote:

[A good thing to do when you are losing an argument is to question the other posters motives, or best of all, label them as 'hateful' and 'intolerant', even though this in no way disproves their point. I have posted many, many links and sources to support my arguments, so you must have me confused with someone else. But then again, do I really need to show you evidence that democracy, women's rights and freedom of speech are mostly absent from the muslim world. Only someone as chronically deluded as yourself would challenge such obvious truths.

.

It's The Bobster's trademark. If it's a site he doesn't agree with, it's racist or nuts. As far as being "hateful" and "intolerant" goes I would say that someone who calls for the death of fellow ESL teachers simply because he doesn't agree with their political philosophy fits that definition nicely.

And don't go complaining about being off topic Mr. Bobster. You derailed this thread already when you decided to make personal attacks on me.

The Bobster

Joined: 15 Jan 2003

Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2005 8:07 am Post subject:

Quote:

Once again you show you can't read, although you do reveal your warped morality. The BNP are a bunch of white nationalists.

They are racists, bigverne. Why do you refrain from using the word even to people to whom it very obviously and clearly belongs, many of whom would themselves deny it?

They are people who hate and fear large groups of people and want others to hate and fear large groups of people, even to the point of promoting violence and discrimination and exile even subjugation upon those people who are different, simply because they are different. Why do you refrain from calling them what they are?

I have some guesses about why.

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

bigverne wrote:

Well, this is a lie.

Time was, I was just about the only one around here who bothered to take the trouble to refute the racists who come around here, and we both know the sort of weasels I'm talkling about. I'm glad others lately seem to take the trouble, cuz god knws I have a life and there are other things I'd rather do once in a while, but the phenomenon seems to grow daily, regardless ...

You seem to find it threatening that people would oppose hate speech by means of clear and rational debate. Not hard to see why you might feel that way ...

Quote:

You derailed this thread already when you decided to make personal attacks on me.

I went back in this thread to see just what it was I said about you that was such a personal attack that you wished to come back only to accuse me of wishing murder upon my colleagues

I think this is it ...

I love when TUM tries to talk about Cindy Sheehan. Let's note how he and EFLtrainer have decided to talk about her on a thread designed for that purpose - which is not to mention her once.

By the way, TUM, nice to see you back. Been waiting patiently for you to return to the thread about Lynne Stewart and explain and show the evidence that Osama bin Laden knows or cares who that person is, let alone counted her as a fan ... it is something you said, TUM, and it made me laugh real hard when I followed the link you gave and found a vaguely racist site that made the assertion and gave a link to a page that talked about Martha Stewart instead ...

Is there something here I said that is untrue, even close to the extent of untrue that your statement above about me wishing death upon people who disagree with me? You know better, or you'd have supplied a link - no, I take that back, you've supplied links maybe a dozen times in the past couple of years and just like the Lynne vs Martha Stewart fiasco above they usually show things quite different from what you claim.

You did in fact derail a topic thread about Cindy Sheehan by refraining from mentioning her more than once. You did in fact make a claim that Osama is a fan of Lynne Stewart and provided a link that included thinly-veiled racism and a similar statement about Lynne that linked to a page about Martha Stewart.

Is this a personal attack, or is it what is true and real and demonstrable? To the extent that it is about your person it is only insofar as the notion that your views deserve exactly as much cred as the behavior of the guy espousing them.

And you have the GALL to complain about what I say to you, after accusing me of harboring homicide in my heart? You are the stuff of laughter, sir, pure giggles.

Quote:

And don't go complaining about being off topic Mr. Bobster.

In my first post here, I quoited a rightwing blogger who asserted that all on the Left owe their origins to terrorists, and siad there was no room for any points of view anywhere near this realm, and I asked if you would care to comment on whether that counts as fanaticism. I'm stilll interested in your views about this. You are free to return to the topic at any time, sir.

bigverne

Joined: 12 May 2004

Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2005 8:38 am Post subject:

Quote:

They are racists, bigverne.

When did I ever say they were not? As can be seen below, I quite accurately described them as a rather nasty, and in fact irrelevant, political organisation;

The BNP are a bunch of white nationalists. They want to end immigration and send non-whites back 'home'. Some of their members are holocaust deniers.

This clearly implies that, yes, they are racists, and I don't think I have ever denied that they are not. But, they are not the same as people who intentionally seek to murder people and spread Jihad. I know such distinctions are hard for you to make, but doing so does not amount to an endorsement of the BNP, which is something that your little brain seems unable to comprehend.

Quote:

They are people who hate and fear large groups of people

Simplistic nonsense. They are against non-white immigration. Again, I am not saying I agree with them, but your analysis of the far-right amounts to the usual liberal psychobabble and impends our understanding of why people vote for them. Why do people vote for the BNP, or Jean Marie Le Pen? Because they 'hate and fear large groups of people', or because they see their country changing very quickly, in many cases for the worse, before them? Because they are attached to their culture and identity and feel it to be under threat, and although they would rather not vote for such individuals they have to because no mainstream parties will address their concerns? No, let's put it down to an irrational 'hatred of large groups of people'.

Quote:

promoting violence and discrimination and exile even subjugation upon those people who are different

The BNP are against non-White immigration and want to repatriate non-Whites back to their lands of 'origin', whatever that means. I find most of their policies quite absurd, but your portrayal of them is the kind of crap you would read in Socialist Worker magazine, and actually helps to play into their hands. In fact, ironically, almost everything that people such as yourself do, on the extreme left, increases their electoral success.

Also, please provide examples of where the BNP have promoted violence or subjugation?

Quote:

Why do you refrain from calling them what they are?

I have called them what they are. A bunch of white nationalists (yes that means racists), who want to send all non-Whites 'back home'. However, I am able to make the distinction between people who advocate xenophobic and racist policies, and people who advocate, and carry out mass murder. You cannot, and that says rather a lot about your basic stupidity and inability to make moral distinctions, which you demonstrate over and over again.

Tell us about your liberal friends feeling scared to write to their Senator, and how this is comparable to the lack of free speech in the muslim world. That was a good laugh.

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:28 am Post subject:

[quote="The Bobster"]

Quote:

Is there something here I said that is untrue, even close to the extent of untrue that your statement above about me wishing death upon people who disagree with me? You know better, or you'd have supplied a link - no, I take that back, you've supplied links maybe a dozen times in the past couple of years and just like the Lynne vs Martha Stewart fiasco above they usually show things quite different from what you claim.

.

I didn't supply a link, because I wanted to see if you'd deny it, which you did by calling it untrue.

Here you are

http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/korea/viewtopic.php?t=40513&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=rabid&start=180

Page 13 post 3.

And don't even try with that lame excuse "verbal". We don't put down rabid animals verbally, we kill them. And don't try to escape either by saying you didn't mean it. In this very post I have caught you denying that you said it.

So that's one lie

And here's another. You claim that I have supplied links maybe a dozen times in the last couple of years...wrong again it's a whole lot more than that.

When will these lies end? When will it ever end, wheenn willll ittt eevvvverr enddddddd?

Last edited by TheUrbanMyth on Fri Nov 18, 2005 6:09 am; edited 1 time in total

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:35 am Post subject:

The Bobster wrote:

[In my first post here, I quoited a rightwing blogger who asserted that all on the Left owe their origins to terrorists, and siad there was no room for any points of view anywhere near this realm, and I asked if you would care to comment on whether that counts as fanaticism. I'm stilll interested in your views about this. You are free to return to the topic at any time, sir.

I will assume that you are serious about this and therefore this is my serious reply. I think that guy is on the same wavelength as the people he is accusing. Certainly he is an extremist. However he did make one good point, the point that Cindy Sheehan is a liability to any party that supports her due to her extreme views. Sure she may be bringing people over to her point of view, but how many will stay the course?

But yes, from what I read of that fellow I would say he qualifies as certainly an extremist. Fanaticism/ I haven't read enough of his work, in fact it's the first time I've seen this particular fellow, to judge that.

EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005

Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:56 am Post subject: Re: Fanatics

riley wrote:

But liberals on this website are no better. C'mon, can't you find anything good about the U.S? Or is it easier to accept that the United States is evil? Do you really think that capitalism is the root of all problems. Do you need to keep repeating the same boring cliche about George W? (we get it already, we know he's a moron)
Can't you listen to the hate you're spewing?

You're buying into the spin that we don't love the US and think it is pure evil. That's bull. Start a thread on, "Why I Love the US" and I"ll be happy to post. As it is, when posting to threads about US mistakes, where is the relevance of posting off-topic ad hominems (sp?) about the dear old US of A?

Here are some of the threads I've posted on, you tell me where the high-fives fit in: Falluja, Katrina, Canadian Anti-Americanism (about CANADIANS, not the US, for example), song titles game, some EFL teaching threads, etc., etc. See any threads there where "I Love the USA" is appropriate?

You're listening to spin, not critique.

EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005

Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 4:24 am Post subject:

Doutdes wrote:

The Bobster wrote:

Wow. Never thought I'd see anyone argue against basic mathemetical realities of the universe.

Doutdes wrote:

It also creates polar system where it may not be appropriate. The Iraq War is a very good example of this. ��Bring the troops home now�� and ��The only mistake we made is we took Baghdad too quickly�� are both extremist and wrong. You assume the correct answer lies somewhere in between. That assumption limits our foreign policy. Have you considered that we should increase Iraq spending and troop levels to stabilize Iraq? What other options does the US have that don��t lie between those two poles?

Again, how do you have a definition for anything without the poles and the many varieties that lie between?? Radicals on either end do help to define what lies between. There are no centrists if everyone is center. While there is inherent danger in extremes of any kind - weather, opinion, behavior - there is also inherent benefit. But you cannot have one without the other. That's... absolute equilibrium, which is neither realistic nor very common, in fact.

Quote:

The Creationists like your philosophy too. They like to bring out the scientist and the ID theorist as conflicting, yet equal viewpoints. In the end, they convince many people that teachers should ��teach the controversy.�� One is peer-reviewed science, the other isn��t, but the conclusion is to teach both because it is the ��moderate�� answer.

This analogy does not work because Creationists are debating apples and oranges. Their perspective is simply wrong because religion is simply not science. The vast majority of school boards recognize this as tripe. It is ignorance that gets Creationism or ID in the curriculum, not extremism.

Quote:

When we polarize an argument between two answers, people assume the correct answer is in between, when it actually is one of them. You even do this with Cindy Sheehan. You first state that she is holding an extreme position, but that position is becoming the mainstream. Even if 80% of people agreed with her, would it remain the extreme or would it become the moderate viewpoint?

You are making an absolute statement yourself. Sometimes the answer is one of the extremes, sometimes - usually - it's not. But if you cut of the extremes you remove the best answer a times. And what is extreme does change. A majority position is no longer an extreme position, by definition. However, the beliefs or policies may still be extreme by other measures. For example, interracial marriage. It is still extreme in terms of frequency, but in terms of societal taboos. Things change.

Quote:

Lastly, it prevents self-examination for liberals. We can remain assure that we do not discriminate against class, race, or sex because we are not as bad as the extremes. It paints the non-rapist as a good guy and the quiet racist as open to diversity. When Americans question the treatment of detainees, we compare ourselves with Saddam Hussein, the Nazis or Pol Pot. Certainly the US is not as bad as they are, but should we be using them as a measure to judge ourselves? Rosa Parks recently died and white people will continue to pat themselves on the back that racism is a thing of the past, because legal segregation is over. Extremes blind people from seeing their privilege.

Your first statement has no basis that I can see. Nor does your second. Where does this come from? This is comparative ethics. Do you believe most people do this? With regard to treatment of detainees, I think most are careful to make the distinction between the actions and "Americans/America." Now Bush and Cheney.... ... specifically... I don't see much of a difference.

Life is lived at all levels of the spectrum. Avoiding any part of it is no answer so far as I can see. It limits your perspective, if anything because it makes it more difficult to define things.

Doutdes

Joined: 14 Oct 2005

Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:00 pm Post subject:

EFLtrainer wrote:

Doutdes wrote:

It doesn��t clarify, it confuses.

Wow. Never thought I'd see anyone argue against basic mathemetical realities of the universe.

I��m saying that extremes shouldn��t exist or shouldn��t be known. I��m saying that focusing on the extremes doesn��t clarify the moderate view. If you want a different analogy: Where is Chicago? It��s between New York and L.A. It is also between Detroit and Kansas City. Which example better clarifies where Chicago is?

Quote:

You��re missing the point. Creationists are framing the argument as polar opposites and that makes people think the answer is somewhere in the middle. Hence, teach the controversy.

Quote:

I miswrote that. What I meant to say is that the correct answer doesn��t always fall in the moderate view, it sometimes falls with one of the extreme views.

Now, what I find interesting is that you��re proving my point with your last statement. In your previous points you��ve stated that we need the poles to determine the moderates. We have to look ��at all levels of the spectrum.�� But if majority position is by definition not extreme, then moderates define the extreme, not the extremes defining the moderates.

Quote:

Lastly, it prevents self-examination for liberals.

Your first statement has no basis that I can see.

I hope you can see the humor in this.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 3 of 5

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe