From: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org (alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest) To: ammf-digest@smoe.org Subject: alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V6 #2 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 Thursday, January 3 2002 Volume 06 : Number 002 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: his point [mrsfillyjonk@hotmail.com (Richard Butterworth)] Re: his point [sugarfly26@aol.com (SugarFly26)] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Jan 2002 03:50:11 -0800 From: mrsfillyjonk@hotmail.com (Richard Butterworth) Subject: Re: his point lightman(at)tmbg.org (Eric) wrote in message news:... > >And > >please base your arguments in product (ie. the fact that more > >Americans wanted Gore to be president than Bush) rather than in > >process. > > Please see my other posts, or read the Constitution. I assume you mean the US constitution. Anyway, nope. Not good enough. All your other posts describe the process of the US electoral system, not the product. Process notwithstanding, the product of the US electoral system is a candidate delivered to office who received less votes than another candidate. AND a turnout of a pathetic 51%. Even my stupid irrational archaic electoral system delivers to power the majority candidates and inspires 60% of the electorate to turn up. I know in this debate I have to ask you the same question about three times before you even get close to answering it, but for old time's sake lets try again, shall we? How do you justify the *PRODUCT* of an electoral system which delivers the second most popular candidate to power? > Switzerland and Iceland aren't easy targets like the United States are. > They don't have as high of a standard of living or as much influence in > international affairs, and thus I think it is quite clear why people have > more to hate in the United States. Rubbish. Switzerland is a much easier target for Islamic terrorists (who are mostly based in Europe apparently). In the UNDP's Human Development Report the US, Iceland and Switzerland were all in the top 10% ranking of which countries had the highest `human development index' which relates fairly closely to standard of living. (US came 6th, Iceland 7th, Switzerland 11th out of 168. Interestingly Norway was first and Canada 3rd. ) Facts, Eric. And again we hit the nub. This whole argument revolves around your contention that the US's influence in the world is benign. Which it is not. Sep 11th did not happen because (your words) `The Taliban considers the United States "the great Satan." Why? Because, among other things, they hate our freedoms.' People hate the US because of their inequitable and screamingly hypocritical foreign policies. You asked for examples of inequitable foreign policy, which have been supplied, and alternatives. The alternative being that that US engages in a much more mature, political, diplomatic level with the rest of the world; not just shut itself in its shell and then rage with cruise missiles every couple of years when the terrorists *they trained and funded* turn against them. So that grievances and misunderstandings are headed off before they hit boiling point. This will not ever prevent loonies getting on planes with bombs, just as all the negotiation in the world will not stop Irish psychos blowing up the bus stop that I was standing at 36 hours earlier. But you will disenfranchise the loonies; you will remove their popular support. So that Bin Laden II can only claim to act on behalf of himself, not on behalf of an oppressed Islam. > >If my theory is correct (and I have evidence for my theory) then > >international terrorism is substantially soluable without resort to > >mass bombs and violence. > Where is your "evidence"? My evidence is Northern Ireland where peace was brought by negotiation. My evidence is that all the British policy from 1968 - 1995 sought to counter the IRA by military means. That not only did not bring peace, but it made the cycle of violence worse by offering the IRA martyrs and entrenching the loyalist beliefs that the republicans were a bunch of murdering madmen. > No, it's not the end of the world. The United States will liquidate those > who intend to harm us, sending a clear message to future terrorists, showing > them exactly what will happen if they try to do the same. It's a strong > deterrent. Total rubbish again. The US will not liquidate by military means the terrorists cells that intend to harm them. The terrorist cells are all over the world, in the most unlikely places, planning I should think very surprising forms of attack. Let's give you another chance to offer evidence over hypothesis: name one terrorist conflict where the terrorists have been subdued by military force alone. And even if you can name one, for each one you name, I'll name ten where countering military force made the situation much worse. > I'm not saying that these morals are yours and only yours, and I'm not even > saying that I necessarily disagree with them. What I am saying is that you > have no right to tell other people that it is their obligation to do this or > that with their money. I have every right to say that. Just as you have every right not to take any notice. So why do all major faiths and philosophies promote charity and the redistribution of wealth? Coincidence? Or because it leads to giving individuals a sense of responsibility to the societies we live in, improved cohesion of those societies and more equitable treatment of all people? > If paying someone more than they're worth isn't charity, than what is!? The > only places in the world where labor is cheap is where it is unproductive. > This is not my hypothesis; this is economic fact. Oh Eric, that's total bollocks. People get paid 87c an hour, not because they are unproductive, but because they live in countries with zero labour laws. They work in so called `swallow factories' because the factories, like swallows, move so fast, hopping from country to country abusing the cheap labour force until the people start organising unions, or threatening revolutions against the governments that allow the abuses on their own citizens. How the hell can third world labour be `unproductive'? The majority of our goods are made in the third world. The first world predominantly does not produce anything material anymore: we make money selling intangible services off the back of the goods made for us dirt cheap in the third world. > The government never has been an efficient or effective charity > system, and it never will be. Please supply evidence for the above statement. Government funding to charity ensures: 1. Consistency of funding. Governments can provide long term funding so that short term economic fluctuations do not have an adverse effect on charity work. 2. Equity of funding. Governments can ensure funding to low visibility, or controversial, or in some ways unpopular charities, like in this country medical research. 3. Global strategies. Many problems addressed by charities are global and need co-ordinated, long term efforts to deal with them, that are beyond the scope of individual charities relying on individual donations. And so on, and so on... > You really have no clue what you're talking about on this one. Oh, hark at her. > > For every weak piece of evidence you have shown, I countered. No you haven't. Tell me which piece of evidence I supplied that's weak. Don't just tell me its weak. Tell me what is weak and why. And supply actual real world evidence of why its weak, don't just counter with your empty, untried theory of utopianised deregulated economics. > And you choose to ignore my evidence (be it accepted > and basic economic theory, or historical pretext) as evidence, because it > doesn't help your arguments. What have you said that I've ignored? Don't try and make out that I'm the one evading arguments here Eric. You have asked for examples of inequitable US foreign policy. Supplied. You asked for alternatives. Supplied. You have not countered anything other than throw a completely untried and utopian economic theory at those supplied facts. And I've countered your theory. All you are doing now is trying to make out you're winning the argument (without evidence, of course). Which you are not. > > Please show me one example of where I "shuffled off" Certainly. In fact, here's two. >By the way: Pakistan -- oppressive dictatorial regime with nuclear >weapons, currently supported by the western alliance. Well, America also considered allowing terrorist states such as Lebanon and Iran into their coalition. I never said I agree with everything the US government does. >You, of >course, knew all about that, and vocally opposed it at the time I >assume? I'm opposed to pretty much all of the United States' foreign policies > And it tells me that you've never taken a class in economics. Please go do > so before you embarass yourself even further. Eric, for once, will you please stop trying to make out that you speak for the rest of this newsgroup? If I'm embarrassing myself, I'll get people emailing me and telling me, and I'll get people posting here and telling me. And, I have to tell you, that as of this moment I have received no such communication. Thus I remain unembarassed. > You've shown me what the IMF has done, but I don't really care. I'm not > arguing on the merit of the IMF's policies, merely its right to exist and > operate freely in a free world and a free market. It seems that you fail to > see the difference. How blind is that? You argue for its right to exist and operate. Fine. It goes off and acts completely inequitably. Buts that's okay; Eric doesn't care. Bully for Eric. The IMF is seen as a tool of economically agressive western imperialism, but that's okay, you just demand its right to exist. You don't care about what it actually does while it exists. Crazy. > I'm sorry that you don't find me humorous, but that's really not my problem. No, nothing is your problem, is it Eric? (Other than being busy.) What a bizarre fantasy you live in. Richard ------------------------------ Date: 02 Jan 2002 20:01:21 GMT From: sugarfly26@aol.com (SugarFly26) Subject: Re: his point Richard said: >But you will disenfranchise the loonies; you will >remove their popular support. So that Bin Laden II can only claim to >act on behalf of himself, not on behalf of an oppressed Islam. There will always *always* be someone who can gather followers, oppressed or not. You won't remove popular support. The oppression only makes it a little easier to gain that support. The only thing you can hope to do (in terms of terrorism) by removing the oppression is make it a little harder to get followers. But there will be something new to take the place of the oppression, a continuing cycle. >So why do all major faiths and philosophies promote charity and the >redistribution of wealth? Coincidence? Or because it leads to giving >individuals a sense of responsibility to the societies we live in, >improved cohesion of those societies and more equitable treatment of >all people? Whoa, whoa, whoa. Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Paganism, nihilism, existentialism, need I continue? Great...now we get into faiths and philosophies. >And I've countered your theory. All >you are doing now is trying to make out you're winning the argument >(without evidence, of course). Which you are not. Not to be a bitch, but it seems to me that all either of you are doing at this point is disagreeing for the hell of it. It seems like your posts say, "These are my beliefs, I'm stickin' to 'em, and now I'm just gonna prove you wrong." >will you please stop trying to make out that you speak >for the rest of this newsgroup? If I'm embarrassing myself, I'll get >people emailing me and telling me, and I'll get people posting here >and telling me. And, I have to tell you, that as of this moment I have >received no such communication. You're both embarassing yourselves, in my opinion, mostly because of carrying on over the same points when you know neither of you is going to concede. >How blind is that? You argue for its right to exist and operate. Fine. >It goes off and acts completely inequitably. Buts that's okay; Eric >doesn't care. Bully for Eric. The IMF is seen as a tool of >economically agressive western imperialism, but that's okay, you just >demand its right to exist. You don't care about what it actually does >while it exists. Crazy. "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." --- Voltaire Ln ------------------------------ End of alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V6 #2 ******************************************