How the other half thinks
If some crazed "I die for Allah" Suicide bomber, that thinks he is gonna get 72 virgins after he blows his butt and yours up, happens throught you neighborhood sometime down the road and threatens your family I wonder what you folks will say then?
...
You people really are starting to scare me, who believe in this kinda of crap. Really sounds like the ACLU has been very busy getting you guys out of your cages and off your med's.
...
when we left (Abu Ghraib), you could hear the prisoners screaming and crying for us to stay and protect them.
...For those that think that (the then-proposed law) is leading us down the path to becoming a Fascist state, please read it and point out specifically what sections are subverting our Constitution or endanger our society. All people do is suppose that this legalizes torture which it does not. If you don't want to read the whole thing then start on page 80 of the pdf version.
As to the habeus corpus provision, it only applies to "any alien detained by the United States as an unlawful enemy combatant." See Page 77 of the pdf version.
Please evaluate this bill for what it actually says rather than what someone else tells you it says. This is not the horrible thing that so many claim it is.
...If Clinton had AT LEAST required secure cockpit doors and warned all airlines of this type of threat, i.e. terrorist trained as pilots, 9/11 would NEVER have happened, PERIOD.
...
I...believe we are in a special time and may need special tools. We are closer to anarchy than fascism. In what time I have left, I will be very surprised if any President in the future will be able to avoid the deep criticism which ours has received.
There are other comments indicating that some folks there get it, but precious little indication that facts or the light of reason are changing anybody's mind.
posted by bluememe at 10/02/2006
4 Comments:
That's why there are three sides to every fence. Your side, their side and my side. You often seem to think that random, nerve firing reactions (advocating who the hell knows what – often including violence) and my position are on the same side of that fence, but we're not.
There are alternatives. Virtually everyone agrees that what we got now ain't working. The problem seems to be that the same everyman allows himself to believe that the recipe just needs some adjustment. Some people want a little adjustment, some a lot, but no one seems to be saying the obvious: If you can't come up with a new way of looking at all of this, you will die, civilization (which was never very civil in the best of times) will end (soon) and I won't say anything because I'll be dead too. But before that…?
The alternatives are non-historical (ahistorical?) techniques and they require radical (orthogonal) thinking. They do NOT depend on a belief in perpetual motion, Martians or anyone else carrying part of the load.
The drawback is that you do have to "roll your own" techniques. But hey, what's life for anyway?
TA
I've been struggling lately with how to respond to people who think like the that. I think I should be able to refute their arguments with facts, and if I can't, then my own positions, though they may be correct, are weak.
It's easy to forget them, thinking it is impossible to change the opinions of those unwilling to believe anything other than what they hear from Fox News or Rush, and hoping that maybe a few more people think like us than lilke them and the elections will turn out OK. But I think we have to try. Elections are so close that if we can show a small percentage of people the light, they may step out of darkness, and in these times, that will be enough to change the direction of our nation's future.
TA - I've been listening to Street Fighting Man a lot lately on my iPod while working out. It gets me fired up. But I still believe change comes from within. I saw a good article on TPMCafe about how voting Democratic is revolutionary. It was a little simplistic, but I like the main point - that we have the tools to change the system built in to the system. And I sincerely believe the pendulum will swing back our way. The only thing we differ on is the way to effect change.
esoder -- two thoughts:
you wrote ...how to respond to people who think like that. I think I should be able to refute their arguments...
If you can find an honest clinical psychologist (extremely difficult) or an honest psychiatrist (fucking impossible), you can ask them about their cure rate for the simplest of disorders, that is the most "treatable" of problems. These problems are (usually) already self-identified by the patient before beginning whatever kind of therapy is recommended. If you can find the aforementioned honest practitioners, they will tell you that they have never cured ANYONE. Further, they will say that NO ONE they know has ever been cured of any disorder by any means. And we're talking about the EASY cases. So when you are trying to persuade anyone who is foaming at the mouth, about the validity of any position other than the one they already have, what do you think YOUR chances are?
Ask Dr. Bloor what he thinks. He should tell you that therapy is palliative, AT BEST. And it sure doesn't change people's minds. When it works at all, what it does is convince a person that he/she should HIDE the evidence of their (probably) crazy thoughts.
So that’s thought number one.
Number two:
You and I don't actually differ on the WAY to effect change (not sure what blue actually thinks), because you have yet to show that ANY of the methods you advocate actually work to really change people's behavior. If you could show success, it would be one hell of an improvement over the results of the mind bending professionals (remember, they got zip success to point at). Once we all agree that the existing methods (therapy, government – all forms at all levels, mental health programs, community care, prisons, "just say no", social welfare, taxes, etc.) DO NOT WORK FOR the humans on the planet, only then can we engage in a discussion of what MIGHT work to bring about change. But, having come up with bupkiss for proven tools, we would first have to look at what change is actually needed, and why. The shape of the vacuum (the demonstrated need for change) absolutely determines the type and nature of tools that can be used to effect, as nothing else does.
To sum up: It's a good thing there are three halves to all issues. Otherwise we'd be shit out of luck if left with only the two halves everybody already knows about. When you've become convinced that EVERYONE comes up dry when challenged to present proven working methods, drop me a line c/o BLUE MEME.
TA
Ashcroft got the same briefing as Condi in mid July 2001. He knew attacks were coming and protected himself. How much cognitive dissonance does it take to ignore facts like this?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/26/national/main303601.shtml
Post a Comment
<< Home