From: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org (alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest) To: ammf-digest@smoe.org Subject: alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V5 #318 Reply-To: ammf@fruvous.com Sender: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest Friday, November 30 2001 Volume 05 : Number 318 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: his point ["Josh Drury" ] Re: his point [Lynne ] Re: his point [Lynne ] Re: his point [Lori Martin ] jian and other musician/celebrities [bnlfan@erols.com] Re: his point [frute_pie@hotmail.com (Molly Hathire)] Re: his point [frute_pie@hotmail.com (Molly Hathire)] Re: An antiwar question [frute_pie@hotmail.com (Molly Hathire)] Re: his point [Lori Martin ] Re: jian and other musician/celebrities ["Josh Drury" Subject: Re: his point Well, I'm certainly glad you decided to take your beefs to a venue for rational discussion (a.m.m-f being one of the few newsgroups I can still find this) rather than simply reacting by booing Jian off the stage. This type of dialogue seems a lot more productive. That being said, I must take issue with a few points: > I agree with you. I saw Jian in Philadelphia and was very surprised that he > was not booed off the stage (I wasn't about to cause a disruption myself, > but probably would have joined in if someone else did). > > Jian's argument seemed to revolve around the idea that, in his words, we are > trying to "bomb the people of Afghanistan into liking us." I think that > this statement on its own shows a grave nievete of Jian towards the > situation. I think that even a casual observer of the situation understands > that the US's goal is not for the Taliban or Al-Qaeda to "like" us, but > rather to disable them so that they can no longer hate us in a way that > threatens our lives. Well, maybe that's true. But for one thing, it's difficult to say what the true goal of foreign policy, or any policy for that matter, really is. We know what the U.S. government tells us it's about; this may be accurate or it may be a cover for some other goal. Or a combination of a number of goals. I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorists, but it's difficult not to be cynical looking at past U.S. foreign policy. Further, if the goal is simply to disable the terrorist cells, I think such a goal would be incomplete. It would likely be difficult to eliminate all terrorists and terrorist organizations (cf. the "War on Drugs", which hasn't gotten anywhere), and even if they can reduce their numbers they will not eliminate their motivation. It would be more productive to eliminate as much as possible the hatred and its causes, rather than simply attack the capacity to act on that hatred. In other words, target the disease rather than the symptom. > > The Taliban is an oppressive regime that supports Al-Qaeda and has enabled > them to carry out multiple terrorist attacks, resulting in many lost > innocent lives. I personally just don't see how anyone could support *not* > putting an end to the Taliban. I think that US officials have made it very > clear on numerous occasions that this is not a war against the people of > Afghanistan; likewise, Afghans could be seen dancing in the streets, shaving > their beards, and otherwise rejoicing after the Taliban fell in their > respective cities. > Well, I think you're right on this one, but I wonder if you're confusing opposition to ending Taliban rule with opposition to the methods used to do so. Or whether the ends justify the means, which is an area where we likely disagree. > My only other comment on this matter is address to Molly, who seems to think > that the killing of the Taliban is morally equivalent to the killing of > innocent civilians. These are people who want to -- and have -- killed us. > They are murderers, criminals, thugs. Their reasons for killing us are > because they don't like us, don't like our freedoms, don't like our > religions, etc. Our reasons for wanting to kill them are self-defense, > measured responses to crimes previously committed by them, and prevention of > future attacks by them (I think it is safe to say that this would not be bin > Laden's last attack if we had not retaliated). Do you really believe that > these acts, although perhaps achieving the same end result (the loss in > human life), are they same? Are rape and making love consentually the same, > since the end result of both is sexual intercourse? > Well, the Taliban aren't innocent civilians, but there are nonetheless innocent civilians being killed, injured, and displaced due to the current conflict. The retaliatory attacks are measured, but obviously not perfectly, and intentions don't matter to those who have been killed or lost loved ones. The rape/consensual sex analogy is rather simplistic; we're not talking about the guilt and punishment of one individual, but spreading guilt around liberally and dealing out punishment in a comparatively haphazard way. I, personally, don't see the acts of terrorism and retaliation as exactly the same, but I don't think the manner of retaliation is appropriate or justified. Josh Drury Winnipeg ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 23:38:23 -0600 (CST) From: Lynne Subject: Re: his point how do we insure that we arent targeting civilians? How do *I* know? Civilians have died as far as I know. (I never claimed to have the solution - by the way) - -lynne - ---------------------------------------- From: wakko@qwerty.bitey.net I've never considered myself a "hawk" by any means, but this one seems like a no-brainer to me: what exactly is wrong about getting rid of a regime that sponsors a major international terrorist organization? Especially if we're going about it in a way that insures we're not targeting civilians? Maybe it's hip to be anti-war these days or something... - - A.P. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 23:43:28 -0600 (CST) From: Lynne Subject: Re: his point Jian is a person with an opinion, just like you. Eric wrote: Jian is a great musician, but a horrendous politician. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 00:48:56 -0500 From: Lori Martin Subject: Re: his point SugarFly26@aol.com wrote: > < answered > her comment.>> > I know this doesn't make it any less of a bad thing, but these people have > been starving to death, as someone pointed out, long before we bombed them. Yes they have. And maybe we should ask why. Because 25 years ago, they weren't. And before September 11, few of us knew they were starving. Now it's a big issue for us, because suddenly the Taliban have become boogeymen. > >I feel there > > is no way to eliminate terrorism unless everyone feels accepted, etc. and > > that is not likely to happen. > <> > Think of gay people. Are they accepted everywhere? Nope. > Do you think they will be? Well, I'm working on it. And I hope so, and I think progress is being made. But in my lifetime? I sincerely doubt it. > I don't. Maybe I'm just being cynical. There's nothing wrong with cynicism -- but I like to temper mine with a little idealism. Otherwise I can't act to try and change the situation that's outraging me. > < else gets a smaller slice, or thinks they do. We can't do anything about > that? > We can't wrap our minds around the concept that it's not size that matters, > but > whether everyone has "enough" -- and if people think they have enough, if > they > feel secure, they won't worry so much about sizing up what else the other guy > has?>> > Again, I'm not talking about feeling accepted in a materialistic way. Nor I. But there is a school of thought that says human dignity and rights begin with the security of fundamental needs being met -- and therefore you can't separate economics from the discussion. As someone with a background in fair trade organisations, I tend to agree with this line of thinking. > < human > dignity and freedom, there's "enough" to go around this globe. There's > plenty.>> > Again, human dignity. Take the Salvation Army. Again, gays. They recently > added to their employee policy that they will give gays the same options for > their live-in partners as married people, pending it's a serious > relationship, etc. But they won't hire gay people. There've been court suits > over this, I believe. That's like saying I brought you this basket of > strawberries, but you can't have them because you're violently allergic and > might die. And now you're bringing prejudice into the equation. :) Dehumanising others. I couldn't agree more. > <> > Do you know anyone, who, when someone is annoyed with them, agrees to talk, > and does so very calmly and rationally, and it seems like a nice agreement is > made, until you realize the person didn't mean it? You give them another > chance. Possibly another. Eventually you stop. Yes. But it takes two to tango. And we never gave them the first chance on this one. > <> > So you don't feel there's any right on our part to ask for that surrender, > because even though this person could be doing terrible things, he's highly > regarded where he is, and we shouldn't mess with that. I think it's absolutely right to request it. I think the *demand* is arrogant and ignorant, because we don't allow Taliban any room to save face. > < discuss the situation. Instead we issued ultimatums.>> > Taliban forces did attack us. When? Al-Qaeda is not Taliban. > < Monday-morning quarterbacking; it's "why didn't you (the government) pay > attention? And when are you going to start? When will you look not just the > crisis but the subtext before instinctively resorting to firepower?">> > I don't want this to come across as bad as I know it's going to sound...but > do you personally do things about this? Does engaging in dialog with elected officials on these issues count? Does working with various aid or relief organisations, supporting others, paying attention to international news briefings, taking part in the free exercise of speech (ie, circulating petitions, participating in demonstrations and rallies), and voting for those i consider the least clueless count? Does talking to you about it count? :) > Why didn't *the government* pay > attention, why not this...I'm just noting that there's a lot of blame, and > I'm not saying it's unwarranted by any stretch of the imagination, but it > sounds like you're making it a lot more simplistic than I feel it really is. I'm not trying to make it sound simple. I'm saying we all have a responsibility to pay attention and do something -- and part of the problem is, as a nation we've been slacking on that. You need look no further than our voting turnouts to see that. But when we're in trouble, we don't want to look in the mirror, we don't want to think that maybe we -- just ordinary American citizens -- have to change something in our behaviour too. > <> > If we hadn't...I think there would be people around going Why aren't we > supporting them?! That's not right! We can't be discriminatory! I seriously doubt it. There were only three nations that recognized Taliban diplomatically as the legitimate Afghan government. Not giving Taliban money in no way means cutting our international aid package to the Afghan people. Oxfam and Doctors Without Borders and International Red Cross would have been delighted had we targeted that money to aid. > < board. But those pawns are real people, forced to wear burqas, working for > practically no salary if they're allowed to work at all, with no education, > little food, and abysmal health care. And they're trapped -- not only hemmed > in > by their own bishops and queens but also, arbitrarily, sacrificed or > "protected" > in the short term for our game objectives.>> > And their game objectives. In chess, both sides sacrifice themselves and > their enemies to help reach their own means. You don't direct your rook to go > help the other side checkmate you. I don't quite understand what you're > getting at with this analogy. I'm getting at the notion that we chose to play chess when there was no particular reason to -- except oil and anti-Russian sentiment. Maybe those reasons don't fly particularly well in central Asia. Or beyond. > I understand that. I would more fully support the bombings if I was confident > in knowing that the United States has every intention of creating a better > Afghanistan, by their standards, not ours, not "westernizing" them, and that > it happened. If it does, then I see nothing wrong with getting rid of the > Taliban by whatever force necessary, as I don't feel it *is* supported by the > common person of Afghanistan. I agree that Afghans should be able to choose their own government. I'm not sure why the US didn't think this 5 years ago ... ten years ago ... twenty years ago ... instead of foisting these thugs ON Afghanistan in the first place. That's why the "whatever force necessary" part bothers me. Why is any force necessary? Because we played this damnable game out of our own narrow interests instead of leaving them alone in their own country, that's why. > > < > military and diplomatic corps for half a decade.>> > > The half decade that was in the Clinton adminstration, perhaps? > <> > Nothing, I just have a lot of disagreements with the last several presidents. > :) Okay then! :) > < policies and motivations and how they are perceived by those they impact, not > just the failure > of our containment methods or intel? I hadn't noticed.>> > Does the government ever say, "Whoops, I guess we were wrong. Sorry about > that. Our bad." Eh. No. But they should. It would go a loooooong way toward mending fences, and reducing our reputation as arrogant imperialists, around the globe imho. > I feel that many of the people in the government know > somewhere that we were wrong and are perhaps taking wrong steps in handling > this. But anger, fear, grief...these things all cloud the way of honestly > saying this is at least partly our fault. I hope things clear quickly and we > can see things more objectively than subjectively, but whether or not that > will happen remains to be seen. Very true. That's why I'm ranting against emotional, instinctive patriotism (jingoism) trumping critical inquiry -- and calling it "unAmerican" besides. > In all honesty, my ideal plan at this point in time would be to use whatever > force necessary to remove the Taliban from their rule, and work on Al-Qaeda, > with the least civilian casualties, and for the US, Canada, Great Britain, > everywhere else that is also involved in this to help reconstruct a better > life for these people, again not how we want it, not our world. But funding > it, helping them with setting up what they need to, etc. Naive? Sure. This > would be a long project, but it would solve both short and long term goals in > my eyes. We could appease whatever twisted revenges we have (whether we > should appease them or not, I don't know yet.) which is the short term, and > ultimately fix something that should have been taken care of a long time ago. > The United States is often looked to almost like it should be solving > everyone else's problems. This is quite illogical, but a lot of times, we > could help substantially, and I feel that this is one of those times. And I think the reason we're so often looked to in that way is because we've woven ourselves so intricately into those problems, and into the daily lives of citizens of almost every country. If we can cut deals to supply them with cheap Coke and cigarettes, why not medicines or nourishing foods? Which is of more intrinsic value? The bigger problem, of course, is that Afghanistan is just one part of the puzzle. Where else do we have to act -- and even if we *should*, can we really do that kind of global deconstruction and reconstruction? Especially with an isolationist president who's "not into nation-building" but is apparently into government-deposing? > As far as war having an abysmal track record, I don't quite agree with you > there. This country is less 400 years old. And we are one of the major world > powers. That's no small feat. I'll play devil's advocate here and say: but is it a global good? More to the point, and making the assumption that the notion and reality of "America" is a good thing, could it have been achieved by non-violent means -- "democratic" means -- instead of by the insurrection of a minority of colonists? Look at the rest of the former British Empire. Look at the other political forces at work in the 18th century. Democracy, or at least federalism, was an idea whose time had come. Perhaps it would have come a few decades later had we not rebelled. But perhaps a more gradual change, supported by a majority, would have spared many other "emerging democracies", from France to El Salvador to India, a history of revolutionary violence and brutality. > War, though > regrettable, has ocassionally yielded long term results that are probably > more positive and productive that what would have come around without it. I tend to think those results are not because of war, but in spite of it. > > If the choice is not doing what's right because you don't want to be > > hypocritical, or fixing an injustice and therefore accepting that hypocrisy > > and realizing something was wrong l personally would choose to be a > > hypocrite, with the hope that I'll remember this and hopefully make better, > > less hypocritical decisions in the future. > > < the > same mistakes as before and somehow hope it will all turn out different this > time.>> > > I wouldn't either. But there are so many varied circumstances with situations > that often you don't realize you stupidly just made the same mistake until, > looking back, you're like "Wow that was just like blah blah blah, why are we > so stupid?" The same mistake tricks us by showing up in many guises, > sometimes really clever ones. Life is a hard teacher. It gives the test > first, and the lesson afterwards. That's all the more reason to study the situation carefully and keep apprised of developments, isn't it? Instead of pulling an all-nighter after the test is announced? > It's a bit more challenging to *be* a pacifist -- > to try to parse a non-violent method of self-defense or, more properly, > universal > protection that doesn't dehumanise someone else, instead of trying to justify > the > use of force "in this case" -- when we've been taken unawares, when we feel > we've > lost the choice of whether or not to engage.>> > I'm not a pacifist. I understand what you're saying. Except for what you mean > about losing the choice of whether or not to engage. Clarification, por > favor? I don't think we lost the choice, but I think many Americans feel we did. This wasn't like going into Bosnia or Somalia; we were attacked; therefore we don't have a choice about whether to act on terrorism any longer. We "have to" respond. That's what I keep hearing: "but we have to do something." Let's think carefully about what "something" is before we leap into action, then. And while we're at it, I'd like to think outside the box of war. It's hard to do. I knew this at 9:30 am on September 11th when I told my mother: "We're at war, we just don't know with who yet." Yes -- the dove knew that much. But it was a foregone conclusion then, because that's the way we think. I can think of only one American example of a person who thought otherwise -- Jimmy Carter, who held an anti-war position at enormous political cost, and without the provocation of a single incinerated building or civilian death. This was a far more appalling attack than the embassy takeover and hostage-holding in Teheran. Still, I was hoping I'd hear something different from the politicos -- some consideration that there might be an alternative to answering destruction and death with more of the same. I was hoping, and praying, that they'd look for a way out of the box. But I've never heard any administration representative speak convincingly -- sincerely -- of a preference for a non-war solution to this crisis. Offers not to attack *if* Taliban meets all our demands without discussion just don't count as sincere in my book. - -- Lori ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 11:40:07 GMT From: bnlfan@erols.com Subject: jian and other musician/celebrities why does anyone take musicians or celebrities words so serious? Listen to the music, watch the movie and enjoy and everything else is just fluff..... back to lurking bo ------------------------------ Date: 30 Nov 2001 05:54:26 -0800 From: frute_pie@hotmail.com (Molly Hathire) Subject: Re: his point lightman(at)tmbg.org (Eric) wrote in message news:... > What policies do you feel are not equitable, let's start with a small example, shall we? "In the village of Kpembe, I came across Azara Issah. She was filling her bucket with water from a dam she knew was infested with guinea worm. She didn't have the money to pay for clean water at the local pump. The village chief invited us for lunch. We ate chicken feet, soup and rice - American rice. A mile away is the Katanga valley, once Ghana's rice bowl. It now lies fallow. Ghana now imports rice Ghana used to be self sufficient in rice. But then the World Bank and IMF decreed that markets had to open and subsidies had to stop. Wherever I looked, I saw double standards. People here have to pay for the essentials of life, like water. In America, the government pours millions of dollars each year into propping up its water system. And why is American rice the staple now for Ghanaians? Yes, you've guessed it. American rice is subsidised." Full report: open your eyes Eric, or at least open them at something other than CNN. Molly ------------------------------ Date: 30 Nov 2001 05:37:27 -0800 From: frute_pie@hotmail.com (Molly Hathire) Subject: Re: his point lightman(at)tmbg.org (Eric) wrote in message news:... > I agree with you. I saw Jian in Philadelphia and was very surprised that he > was not booed off the stage (I wasn't about to cause a disruption myself, > but probably would have joined in if someone else did). then you have no moral courage of your own, you are a crowd follower. I didn't see Jian's gigs but I like really wish I did. to tour a foreign country at war and openly oppose that war shows an enormous amount of courage. more courage than you obviously have. next time please feel free to walk out. leave Jian's opinions to those of us who think that the richest country in the world bombing the poorest is morally objectionable; those of us who know that extreme terrorism breeds in poverty and that the price of solving that poverty is about the same as the price of one cruise missile. let us have our say. your views are all over the TV and radio and papers. if you can't deal with one man standing up and opposing your view then bad luck. I have to deal with a brain dead gun-ho media that constantly opposes and does not represent my view. > My only other comment on this matter is address to Molly, who seems to think > that the killing of the Taliban is morally equivalent to the killing of > innocent civilians. i said nothing of the sort. I have no love for the Taleban, but I have no love for the Northern Alliance either -- they have all brutally murdered civilians, using weapons funded by your tax dollar, which Americans didn't give a shit about on September 10. let us just assume that the war om terrorism is a just war. is 7000 dead Americans what it takes to get America to act justly? cos that what it looks like to everyone else, apart from America apparently. I feel revulsion at anyone who can describe any other group as 'non human' whether that group is defined by ethnicity or ideology. whenever there is carnage, mass slaughter and genocide it ALWAYS starts with someone describing someone else as non human. how do you think that the suicide bombers justified killing thousands of americans -- by being brainwashed into thinking that americans are not human most likely. you wanna call the Taleban non human then fine, I'm not stopping you, but don't get all morally righteous if they don't think you're human either. and don't be surprised if this war isn't over by christmas. don't be surprised if this war isn't over in 50 years. Do you really believe that > these acts, although perhaps achieving the same end result (the loss in > human life), are they same? Are rape and making love consentually the same, > since the end result of both is sexual intercourse? you manage to get to that conclusion from my previous email?? please allow me to introduce to you debating skills for beginners: 1. read what I wrote. 2. understand it. Molly ------------------------------ Date: 30 Nov 2001 06:30:12 -0800 From: frute_pie@hotmail.com (Molly Hathire) Subject: Re: An antiwar question SugarFly26@aol.com wrote in message news:<89.f9aa01c.29385d78@aol.com>... > In Jian's article, I didn't really notice any suggestion of what alternative > he would support. I kept waiting for one, perhaps I missed it? I'd be very > curious. Up until now, following through Fruvous, I've agreed with nearly all > his political views about issues I had knowledge of both sides on. Apparently > not this one, and I'd be curious to know his alternative and reasoning. Did > he perhaps go into it more at a show that someone was at, and could tell me > about? Thanks. i can't speak for Jian, but here are two points: 1. no-one has convinced me that the 'war on terrorism' will solve the problem, if the problem is America being attacked. in fact the more we bomb, the more we alienate, the more we allow killing and the more we participate in the killing then the more reason we give alineated people whose families are killed to get in trucks full of explosives and drive them into american bases. that isn't hypothesis, it happened in Lebannon (for Eric, Lebannon is a country in the Middle East). it will probably happen in Afghanistan. it will probably happen in America. why is there peace (of a sort) in northern ireland? (northern ireland, Eric: northern bit of island to the west of britain, europe.) because the opposing parties started talking to one another, making concessions to one another and stopped thinking that each other were inhuman. or was it because the American airforce bombed the crap out of the protestants, herded them into a prison camp and stood by while the catholics slaughtered them? 2. if you find something morally offensive, it is not up to you to suggest an alternative. if I see someone beating a dog (even a dog that has biten them) I ask them to stop. Molly ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 11:43:11 -0500 From: Lori Martin Subject: Re: his point Molly Hathire wrote: > > I didn't write him after the Rochester show, but I was deeply offended > good. it like (sic) sorta sounds like (sic) you deserve being deeply offended. > well done Jian. > what a revolting statement. you advocate the killing of the Taleban > and therefore you deny their right to life. by your own argument you > are inhuman. would you care to like (sic) change your argument? and later: > then you have no moral courage of your own, you are a crowd follower. > I didn't see Jian's gigs but I like really wish I did. to tour a > foreign country at war and openly oppose that war shows an enormous > amount of courage. more courage than you obviously have. > you wanna call the Taleban non human then fine, I'm not stopping you, > but don't get all morally righteous if they don't think you're human > either. > please allow me to introduce to you debating skills for beginners: > > 1. read what I wrote. > 2. understand it. and still later: > that isn't hypothesis, it happened > in Lebannon (for Eric, Lebannon is a country in the Middle East). it > will probably happen in Afghanistan. it will probably happen in > America. > why is there peace (of a sort) in northern ireland? (northern ireland, > Eric: northern bit of island to the west of britain, europe.) Speaking of moral righteousness (not to mention demeaning those who disagree) ... pot, meet kettle. ;) And isn't morally righteous bluster, instead of reasoned and civil dialogue, a good part of what lands us in war in the first place? Molly, I understand your anger, believe me. But your words are seethingly combative, and seem calculated to put down those who disagree or make errors of logic, instead of simply pointing out what you view as the error. You're the one provoking a "war" here -- albeit a flame war -- in a group that is sharing, listening to, discussing, and genuinely trying to understand disparate positions, including those such as yours and mine that most of the US simply writes off as "unAmerican". No one here is trying to stifle dissent except you. Thanks to the rest of you for engaging in thoughtful discussion devoid of personal attack. - -- Lori ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 15:11:11 -0600 From: "Josh Drury" Subject: Re: jian and other musician/celebrities wrote in message news:3c076fc1.2714689@news.erols.com... > why does anyone take musicians or celebrities words so serious? > Listen to the music, watch the movie and enjoy and everything else is > just fluff..... > back to lurking > bo I'm not sure why celebrities automatically get attention no whatter what they're discussing, but I don't think it's all 'fluff'. It depends on context. If an act is overtly political (and I would say that Moxy Fruvous and Jian in particular are), then that's a part of their appeal to many people, and their words can't be simply discounted. I do see your point though, quite often celebrities words are given far too much weight, compared with people who probably know the subject matter better but aren't famous for things completely unrelated to it. I'm not sure why people think this way; I don't (that I'm aware of anyway) think, for example "oh, that's the guy who had that hit single on that soundtrack, he must therefore be right on this issue!". But while people are aware of it or not, that's what a lot of them seem to think. People don't think rationally, to put it bluntly. Josh Drury Winnipeg ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 19:46:28 EST From: SugarFly26@aol.com Subject: Re: his point Molly said: <> Possibly...how do the US military forces do it? One of my relatives was in war. He talks about knowing full well that these people were humans, had kids, concerns, dreams...and that he feels there is a point when you have to decide to either close your eyes and apologize to God for protecting your interests and the interests of your family instead of those of a fellow human, or live in fear and/or constant wondering, praying to God that someone else will fix things, militarily or not. Though by no stretch do I think it's easy, I think it's become easi*er* to not think about it. Way back in the day, you fought your enemies face to face, hand to hand. Now you could very easily be in a plane, or shoot a missile, launch a torpedo, and never see who you kill or how many. It depends on your conscience what you go through after, if you're alive. For example, I wonder what the hijackers would be thinking if they had used some other means and killed many people and still lived. For whatever reason they could justify themselves, using their religion, using whatever it happened, there's the fact that we caused them, in whatever way, to get to that level of hatred. And we should learn from this. Are we going to? I don't know. I hope so. Ln ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 19:34:10 EST From: SugarFly26@aol.com Subject: Re: An antiwar question Molly said: <<2. if you find something morally offensive, it is not up to you to suggest an alternative. if I see someone beating a dog (even a dog that has biten them) I ask them to stop.>> Your alternative is not beating the dog. Not full alternative, but enough. If you wrote about that and said, "This guy was playing frisbee with his dog in the park and he accidently hit the dog in the eye with the frisbee, so the dog bit him, and he smacked the dog." I'd be like yeah. And? So what did you do? And no, it's not your responsibility to come up with an alternative. But you will be taken more seriously because it will show you've put some thought into it rather than saying, This is offensive to me, so stop. You don't explain why it's offensive, and what steps you'd like to see advocated to remedy it. Without that, it's very unlikely that change will be brought about, because people can't magically see where you're coming from, *especially* when they hold an almost complete opposite view. That's a syndrome associated with teenagers a lot, I feel, some warranted some not. Warranted like we should have complete anarchy because rules suck, and unwarranted with dismissing points a teenager may be making not based on their validity but the age of the person saying them, or assuming a teenager won't understand what an adult is saying because they "haven't been there." And moreover, you might think of an alternative that would have never crossed the other person's mind, and in some cases even change their outlook. It's a process of growth to suggest alternatives and look for better ways of doing things, rather than say This is wrong to me but I don't really wanna bother trying to change it. It comes across as bitching without reasoning, and it gets annoying to me personally fast when people do that. Not saying that you did here, but that's how I feel about alternatives. I'm big on compromise, though this post may not really sound like it. :) Ln ------------------------------ End of alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V5 #318 ********************************************