But how can you go off the deep end like...all your nasty insults, the cursing etc? Seems kind of like misdirected energy to me.
When i said 'Z and i have some sort of love hate thing going...' I
never imagined you or anyone could have interpreted it as you did. I
wrote that with a fond memory of your fierceness and confidence....it
was something i had admired, regardless if you understood what i had
actually said so long ago. But after this pitiful display of resurgent
immaturity, i realize that i had horribly overestimated you. You are
very literate, but i get the sense that you respond only to listen to
your own voice.
>From: "Eric " <6ceb3@qlink.queensu.ca>
>Reply-To: virus@lucifv .com
>To: <virus@lucifer.com>
>Subject: Re: virus: "We will fight to defend the honor of our rocks!"
>Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 18:22:17 -0500
>
>Hi,
>
>Sodom < et
><<
>Their "goal" was to eliminate a political and ethnic minority (I am
>speaking of the Kurds). It was not to reloacate, share or get along
>with them. Gassing may be the method, killing is the goal. Is that
>wording better?
>>>
>
>Perhaps. If the US had offered to relocate all the Kurds, do you
>think Iraq would have objected? I still think it's wrong to view the
>situation in a simple us/them war mode kind of mentality -- both sides
>are human, and both sides would be reasonable if they thought it was
>going to benefit them.
>
><<
>This is utterly unreasonable - I suppose we could have let Germany
>March across Europe and the world, and stayed out of it beecause we
>wouldn't want to violate any "German Soldiers" rights?
>>>
>
>We don't have to violate their rights to stop them from advancing. If
>they become violent, we may be forced into a self-defence mode, at
>their loss. Whatever their goals are, it probably would have been
>easier (and less expensive) to acheive them in a cooperation mode.
>
><<
>That is what you are saying here, it doesnt matter to you what the
>pattern of behaviour is for a country - no matter how they act,
>responding withg the military is the wrong option? Is this reasonable
>and when this method has been tried, where are those countries now? In
>order to have this view you have such an incredibly niave view of the
>world as to make your opinion useless. You are not "lowering" yourself
>to that level by fighting.
>>>
>
>Controversy equalizes fools and wise men and the fools know it.
> -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
>
>Responding with the military on *offensive* is certainly the wrong
>option. A defensive stance can be justified, if no other, better,
>solution can be found. I am certain, however, that such a solution
>could almost always be found.
>
><<
>Fighting is not a universal measuring stick. Fighting and making war
>are not inherently wrong. By your argument, we dont need to go after
>killers with police, we should just be able to ask them to kindly come
>out and walk behind bars for us, maybe "Happy, Happy jail" messages
>will work?". Thats not the way it works IRL.
>>>
>
>We do not need to go after killers with police -- we need to chase
>them instead with goodwill and messages of peace. The reason that
>cops never fire first (and I hear don't even carry guns in England) is
>that the purpose of a cop is not to subdue the enemy with force. The
>purpose of a cop is help those in trouble -- and, in any violent
>situation, both the victims and the aggressors need help, just in
>different ways.
>
><<
>Thats exactly what you "want" it to be like - you think children
>"should" be some way. It simply does not work like that in real life -
>the first thing anyone understands is need and pain, usually related.
>Its what teaches you to avoid the flames. If you have no understanding
>at all, putting your hand in the flame takes but one quick lessen,
>even for the most mindless.
>>>
>
>True. But a far better solution is merely holding one's hand close to
>the flame -- or passing it through real quick -- to convince yourself
>that holding it there would be painful. And a uniqely human solution
>is to become convinced of the danger of pain by rational argument --
>which is both humanities profound strength and the source of some of
>our deepest problems.
>
>On a different note, I think that "pain" and "teaching" are not
>directly related;
>"pain" and "conditioning" are much closer. It is fairly easy to
>condition people (and animals) to avoid the pain, but you cannot teach
>a human anything meaningful by applications of pain -- merely motivate
>them to learn. It is my position that such motivation not only is
>less effective than other methods available (especially intrinsic
>motivation, from the individual themself), but that it also causes
>coercion damage, resulting in entrenched theories (e.g. the much heard
>"I can't do math") and a loss of creativity and motivation.
>
>
>ERiC
>
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com