Large Scale Central

Dear Barac

General Discussion
#61

Tim,

So you actually think they’d use an atom bomb to knock them out? Or they would even get close enough in a sub or bomber to knock them out with a conventional weapon? If it’s for our global defence network, then I’d say it is for your benefit. Doesn’t global defence mean you, too? Aren’t you an ally? Wouldn’t we try and help defend you in an attack? What benefit is it to you in our getting annihilated in a nuclear holocaust? Or loosing a war for that matter? Or are you just concerned they would attack you first and not us? Would it help if we dismantled it and lost some of our defence capabilities? Would that really make you feel safer? Subs are our first line of defence. The enemy not knowing where they are comes in handy in deterring any hostile moves against you or any of our allies. But I’m sure you already know that.

#62

Ken,
just showing that there are two sides to a discussion. Several hardliners on this site have a firm opinion on particular topics and believe because they think it then it must be true. All I am pointing out is that all political parties and all foreigners and all religions have an opinion. Some hardliners though dispute their right of reply, even ridiculing those with a counter view. This site is not simply a domestic site but is open to the entire world. By inference then, those hardliners are exposed to views that counter their own. By expressing an opinion then they leave themselves exposed to a right of reply.

#63

I welcome your point of view. Just like I hope you welcome my and other so called hardliners point of view. Like someone else mentioned it’s good to get the opinions of other people from around the world. Hell, me and Ralph have been having an economic discussion for days…we 've finally come to the conclusion that we’ll have to agree on just one thing…disagreement. If he lived in PA and ran for congress, I might have even voted for him. But I’m not moving there and he’s not moving here and I don’t think he’d run anyway, so…
We were gonna try eye-gouging and arm-breaking, but we both agreed it was too painful. Name calling wasn’t in the rule book either, but we each got to hear the other’s point of view. And hopefully we’ve remained friends…

One thing you do have to understand, is when someone questions your countries motives for doing something, it’s hard to keep silent on the issue, ESPECIALLY if the other person is from another country. I’m sure you’d do they same thing if we questioned your country’s motives.

#64
Quote:
... ...is when someone questions your countries motives for doing something...
Motives can only be truly defended by those whose motives they are. I cannot defend my country's motives any more than I can defend my wife's, simply because they are not my own. Closeness gives one a better understanding of another's motives, but there's still an inherent disconnect and room for hidden agendas. For instance, when my wife says "Let's go to the mall," and I ask why, she gives me an answer. Invariably, we end up walking by the jewelry stores, with her pointing out the newest, most sparkly things in the window. Now, was her motivation really the answer she gave me, or was it really to give me not-so-subtle hints about gift ideas? (In fairness to Allison, I do the same thing in Home Depot.)

An individual “defending” his country’s motives faces even more ambiguity. The best he/she can hope to do is frame the actions in terms of motives he/she logically reasons to be the most probable. Facts may promote one theory over another, but their interpretation is still subjective. Its perfectly normal to defend your opinion on various matters. It’s important to remember, however, that you’re defending motives about which you have no first-hand knowledge. There cannot be absolutes under those conditions, therefore others’ views carry just as much weight.

Later,

K

#65
Ken Brunt said:
I welcome your point of view. Just like I hope you welcome my and other so called hardliners point of view. Like someone else mentioned it's good to get the opinions of other people from around the world. Hell, me and Ralph have been having an economic discussion for days........we 've finally come to the conclusion that we'll have to agree on just one thing................disagreement. If he lived in PA and ran for congress, I might have even voted for him. But I'm not moving there and he's not moving here and I don't think he'd run anyway, so............... We were gonna try eye-gouging and arm-breaking, but we both agreed it was too painful. Name calling wasn't in the rule book either, but we each got to hear the other's point of view. And hopefully we've remained friends..........

One thing you do have to understand, is when someone questions your countries motives for doing something, it’s hard to keep silent on the issue, ESPECIALLY if the other person is from another country. I’m sure you’d do they same thing if we questioned your country’s motives.


We sure do remain friends.
Couldn’t change your mind, but it has been the most civil and enjoyable “argument” I’ve had the privilege of participating in.
Ralph

#66

Kevin,

I’m truly sorry you can’t defend your countries motives. They’ve been documented in countless history books ad nausem for the last 60 years, from professional authors to actual participants so you can somewhat relate to them. As for any hidden motives, you’re right I don’t know. But I’m sure if you asked someone what their motives we’re and they were honest and told you, then you would know.

#67

Tim,
Do you include yourself in the classification of “hardliner?”

Just asking…

#68
Ken Brunt said:
Kevin,

I’m truly sorry you can’t defend your countries motives. They’ve been documented in countless history books ad nausem for the last 60 years, from professional authors to actual participants so you can somewhat relate to them. As for any hidden motives, you’re right I don’t know. But I’m sure if you asked someone what their motives we’re and they were honest and told you, then you would know.


Kevin makes a good point. Stated motives and true motives are not always the same. As for an honest answer…that is becoming a rare thing today.
Ralph

#69

Your right, true or hidden motives no one will ever know. I can only go by the stated motives. And that’s what was being defended. Little tough to defend a hidden motive if ya don’t know what it is.

#70

It’s the inherent difference between “stated” and “hidden”–even by 1st parties–that creates ambiguity. Yes, you can certainly defend stated motives, but not with any degree of real certainty. Unless you’re the one stating them, you have no idea whether what is stated is actually true. Therefore, defending such motives in terms of absolutes is an inherently flawed argument. You have to allow for alternatives.

Using “honest” to describe “politics” cannot be done. That’s not meant as a flippant statement, rather a reflection of reality. You simply cannot be truly honest and open and be in politics. Politics–by its very nature–requires a degree of tongue-biting, deal-making, and half-truths. If I’m trying to get you to vote to fund a new factory in my district, I’m going to color it in such a way as to show you that it’s advantageous to you. Obviously it’s advantageous to me or I wouldn’t be asking you to vote my way. There’s no need to let you know exactly how advantageous it would be for me. And if you do ask, I’m not going to tell you my hidden motives because (a) you could vote no, or (b) if you do vote “yes,” it could come back to bite both of us. That’s why they’re hidden motives. I’ll tell you it’s something like “my district needs the jobs” which is true. What I won’t tell you is that a college buddy owns the land the factory will be built upon. Whether that’s pure coincidence or a favor is not important. There’s a perceived impropriety there that I’d prefer to keep to myself to the benefit of my constituents.

As for the history books, they’re as subject to the authors’ interpretations of the facts and events as any of our opinions. Even first-person memoirs need to be viewed with a dose of open-mindedness. Go to any accident scene and ask the drivers involved to give an account of what happened. The chances of them being identical are quite on the low side. Perspective colors everything. You know the saying–“history is written by the winners.”

Later,

K

#71

Steve,
definately ‘yes’, but, I have the capacity to accept anothers right to express their opinion, without ridicule. I did make a statement of a particular word ‘redneck’ which some took as a criticism and some as a badge of honour. A ‘redneck’, to me, is a term which describes a hardliner with very biassed, bigotted views and who is unable to appreciate that others, who have opinions, apart from his own, have the right to express that opinion. When one is not open to appreciating anothers point of view then he shuts out that person. His opinion may be right or wrong, but by expressing that opinion then a whole new world opens, i.e., unbiassed discussion.

      One cannot invoke a biassed viewpoint without experiencing some criticism in return.
#72

I know what hidden motives are. If the motive is hidden, kept from view, undisclosed, never revealed to anyone, then yes I agree with you. It would be a moot point anyway. Only to be guessed at by a persons actions. If they’re stated, documented, made public, archived, published, whatever, there still known whether honest or dishonest. Historical documents are replete with the written and stated thoughts of the individuals motives, even at that time, “their Hidden motives”, that were involved, no interpretation necessary, whether in diaries, letters to loved ones, memos, communiques and countless other forms of communication. If they’re hidden, never to see the light of day by anyone, then they go to the grave with that person. They are truly “hidden!”
And I understand what you’re trying to say. I know there are plenty of ambiguities.
And I have never once inferred that "politics’ and “honesty” go together. Or that said motives were indeed a fact. It was entirely my opinion as I stated, as was everyone else’s that is posted on this forum. Even what we’re discussing here are only 2 opinions. Sometimes 3 when Ralph barges in…They differ as most opinions do.

Quote:
If I'm trying to get you to vote to fund a new factory in my district, I'm going to color it in such a way as to show you that it's advantageous to you. Obviously it's advantageous to me or I wouldn't be asking you to vote my way. There's no need to let you know exactly how advantageous it would be for me. And if you do ask, I'm not going to tell you my hidden motives because (a) you could vote no, or (b) if you do vote "yes," it could come back to bite both of us.
Sure you can do that. I'm perfectly aware of how that happens. But............ you've just written it down so it's no longer a completely hidden agenda. It's been made public that you have a hidden agenda. Whether you're honest or not, I can only guess. What your hidden motives are , can probably be arrived at by your actions. And that would only be a guess. If YOU write down those hidden motives or disclose it to someone else and for some reason they reach the light of day, then we all know what your hidden motives are. Not entirely hidden anymore, are they?
#73

Tim -

The term redneck originally comes from The West Virginia coal miners at the Battle of Blair Mountain when the coal miners wore red bandanas around their necks to identify themselves while they were fighting to secure their right to unionize.

More recently, a redneck is one who has a “glorious lack of sophistication,” according to Jeff Foxworthy.

Your prejudices and bigotry are showing.

What is the point of having a viewpoint, if it is not biased? To have an unbiased viewpoint is an oxymoron. Oh, wait a minute… I get it now. Only your opponents have biased viewpoints, right? Yours are completely unbiased. Balderdash!

#74

Steve,
you are so predictable. Having a viewpoint is not the issue. Denying others the same right that you allow yourself is the ultimate hypocricy.

#75
Steve Featherkile said:
Tim -

What is the point of having a viewpoint, if it is not biased? To have an unbiased viewpoint is an oxymoron. Oh, wait a minute… I get it now. Only your opponents have biased viewpoints, right? Yours are completely unbiased. Balderdash!


Steve,
I hate to disagree with you, but you should be getting used to it by now.
I have many unbiased opinions. When one is not involved unbiased opinions are possible. Because our country is involved, our opinions are biased.
Tim’s country was(and may still be) involved, so his opinion may also be biased.
But just because one’s opinion is not biased, does not make him right. Just as one’s biased opinion may not be wrong.
Ralph

#76
Tim Brien said:
Steve, you are so predictable. Having a viewpoint is not the issue. Denying others the same right that you allow yourself is the ultimate hypocricy.
How did you get there??????? When did I, or anyone, deny anyone's "rights?" Have you been power drinking "Foster's" again?
#77
Tim Brien said:
Steve, you are so predictable. Having a viewpoint is not the issue. Denying others the same right that you allow yourself is the ultimate hypocricy.
I don't see where this is coming from. Steve has strong opinions. Many differ from mine. I've never had a problem with him. I sure don't see where he has denied anybody the right to express their viewpoint. Ralph
#78

Ralph, your “unbiased” opinions are colored by your life’s experiences. You say they are “unbiased,” but I can guarantee you that they are not "unbiased. "

And, I think that you enjoy disagreeing with me… :smiley:

#79
Steve Featherkile said:
Ralph, your "unbiased" opinions are colored by your life's experiences. You say they are "unbiased," but I can guarantee you that they are not "unbiased. "

And, I think that you enjoy disagreeing with me… :smiley:


Yes, great fun.:lol:
Ralph

#80

I enjoy a good argument, in the nicest sense of the word. Sometimes, I’ll argue the other side, just for drill.