"Koz" wrote in message ...
Thanks for the reply. I didn't specifically think you were against the right to believe in communism so it hit me a little wrong when you appeared to come down that way. I understand a little better now, how you come down in the issue.

With regards to beliefs and the rational vs emotional department, there is such a thing as emotional justification. Using the "christian" side (as Bush often does), there is no proof of any diety yet "god" is often used as justification for actions. One could never sway those who believe because "god" can't be wrong.

On the other side, I have beliefs that are just as strong and clear. One such belief is that violence is never the best solution nor even an option; Volient response should be reserved as an immediate defense to an impending unquestional IMMEDIATE threat. You don't shoot the bull because he may charge, has charged before, is likely to charge, has the ability to charge, etc.; you shoot him because the horn is about to enter your gut, AFTER having tried to get away, distract the bull, elecit help, and a host of other actions.

The world can be just a little more complicated than that, and this from a man with a rather simplistic view g . If the bull has a determined purpose, openly and widely stated, to kill, harm or destroy me or mine, then I shoot the bull on sight, or soon after.
JTMcC.




Others come down in different places as to when to shoot. However, it is my belief, as storng as anyone elses belief in God, that to shoot sooner is wrong. Does that mean my argument is always wrong because factually I can never prove that shooting as a last measure is the best thing to do? Does that mean someone else is wrong for not being able to prove that shooting earlier is the correct action? Yes, based onour beliefs, the other person is "wrong". Unprovable, but still wrong from our perspective (and ours alone).

The problem occurs when we forget that such beliefs are ONLY from our own perspective and therefore neglect to reflect upon the other person's perspective. Yes, facts can lend weight and often prove/disprove simple points. However, they can never prove such complex issues as are had in opinions or viewpoints.

People need to stop trying to squash the other guys opinion like a bug and move on to discussing the facts behind the issues that helped form their opinions and the emotional ties to those opinions. We each may be "right", but so is the other guy.

Koz (who is probably going to be accused by some as being "touchy-feely liberal commie *******")

Gunner wrote:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:34:39 -0800, Koz
wrote:


I had to ask Mr Gunner...sorry to those who are sick of off topic stuff.

What does it matter if he was or was not a communist? Is it not a part
of the US culture that one has the right to have an opinion that the
government should run differently as long as one does not advocate the
violent overthrow of the government?


Good question! It is indeed right and proper that any may hold any
bleeve they may choose.

Just curious....it may just be the way the wind is blowing but the
implication is that had Moore's father believed in communist style
governments (as you appear believe in a more liberaterian government),
he would somehow have been deserving of the blacklisting and/or worse
scorn.


Recent releases of Soviet documents have shown that there were indeed
a great number of clandistine Communist activists among those
blacklisted. Jumping Joe McCarthy was an oportunistic clod..but as it
turns out, he was indeed correct in far more cases than previously
accepted. People who did provide aid, information etc to the
Soviets. Do the websearches on this fascinating topic. Its rather
moot now, as the USSR is kaput..but those individuals in many cases
are still alive.

Holding a viewpoint that is contrary or imical (sp?) to that of ones
nation, is fine, and is protected. But when it becomes actual
treason..thats another story. Or do you think that treason is ok?


Again, just curious. Hard for me to understand the more conservative
viewpoint sometimes because (like the liberal end too) it often seems to
contradict itself.


Quite true. If you look at a problem and judge it/filter it through
your own mindset and prejudices, it may indeed appear contridictory.

Its very hard for anyone, to not use their own prejudices and mindset
in such matters. Particularly for those whom have not devoted any
appreciable amount of time to listening to both sides of an issue,
before forming a judgment. Once an individual has heard and understood
both sides of an issue, he can then form a rock hard Stand on
something, but that must include data, and fact, rather than solely
emotional content.

As you may have guessed..Im a bit opinionated G..but my opinions and
Stand on an issue are based on data, reason, logic and very little
emotion. Ive weighed both sides of most basic issues, then formed my
Opinion. I NEVER use "Feel" as a criteria for that opinon or stand.
Once that Stand has been formulated, I do indeed enjoy defending it
with great emotion, but as I reiterate..emotion was not used to
formulate that stand.
Which is where my debating opponents often differ. They tend to use
Emotion..how they feel about something..then try to find data bits to
fit their emotions, rather than formulating an opinion based on those
data bits in the first place.

I wish I had a nickle for every time someone responds to a statement
or question with "Well, I feel..."

I could care less about how they feel. I only care about what is, or
is not actual fact. Put your feelings in one hand, and a block of 440c
in the other, and tell me which is more substancial.

Im fascinated by those whom hold such opinions, who simply have this
huge blindspot or mental block about actually looking at WHY they
believe such and such. I suspect its because when they do, they find
they have been badly wrong for a very long time..and no one likes to
discover that about themselves. In debate, you can see them
approaching this blindspot, by the increasingly shrill tone of their
responses, generally culminating with invective for its hurt value, as
they have run out of reasons, or would have to face their own
Wrongness to continue any further.

Most Liberals for example..go through life with a huge amount of their
opinions formed on their feelings. Which is not to say they may not be
nice people, kind, compassionate, careing. But those opinions may have
no relationship to the harsh realities of life..in fact..they may have
formed them on how Life should really be. But blindly ignoring what
IS, and baseing their view of reality to what SHOULD be, is both sad,
and self defeating.

Because of this, I tend to be something of a pragmatist. I know what
IS, and what things Should be, and tend to try to work a compromise
with both, but never letting Should be overload what Is.

And my opinons of what Should be..have been developed on data, logic
and reason. Not emotionalism.

On the flip side..many conservatives are just as guilty. However in
the grand scheme of things, their numbers are small, and their
emotionalism is generally based on some religious value system, which
is just as emotionally loaded as anything a Lib believes in.

Probably the most reality oriented political group in the US, is the
libertarians. Cold hard facts are the basis of their platform, no
matter how emotionaly they argue it G. And because they neither use
religion or emotion as a basis..they get flack from both the Right and
the Left.
The Left considers the basic contract of the United States as an
impediment to providing things that make them Feel good. The Right
considers the Constitution as an iron bound countract, to neither be
cast aside or worked around. They do at times, tend to trod the edges
pretty hard in some special cases such as the Patriot Act, but seldom
step over the line.

The Left considers making endruns around it business as usual,
bypassing it when practical, getting some liberal judge to once again
reinterpreting it to fit their cause of the moment.

Lets be practical here for a moment..if you did business with a
company that did the same thing with a business contract..you would
have them in court in a heart beat. And justifyably so.

Shrug..but I digress, its a slow rainy cold day with no work till
tommorow.

Gunner


Koz



Gunner wrote:


On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 17:24:55 GMT, Alan Moore
wrote:

snip

As a child I went hungry because of the criminal character of another
american institution -- the House Committee on Un-American Activities
-- whose investigation caused my father to be blacklisted and unable
to find employment, although they failed to turn up any wrongdoing of
any kind.



Bummer. Was he a Communist? Its ok to speak freely now.



snip again



" ..The world has gone crazy. Guess I'm showing my age...
I think it dates from when we started looking at virtues
as funny. It's embarrassing to speak of honor, integrity,
bravery, patriotism, 'doing the right thing', charity,
fairness. You have Seinfeld making cowardice an acceptable
choice; our politicians changing positions of honor with
every poll; we laugh at servicemen and patriotic fervor; we
accept corruption in our police and bias in our judges; we
kill our children, and wonder why they have no respect for
Life. We deny children their childhood and innocence- and
then we denigrate being a Man, as opposed to a 'person'. We
*assume* that anyone with a weapon will use it against his
fellowman- if only he has the chance. Nah; in our agitation
to keep the State out of the church business, we've
destroyed our value system and replaced it with *nothing*.
Turns my stomach- " Chas , rec.knives