Re: War on humanity
From: Captain (Captain7_at_rochester.rr.com)
Date: 06/12/04
- Next message: Captain: "Re: [OT:] Re: War on humanity"
- Previous message: RosalieM: "Re: I've dumped Linux and moved to Windows XP."
- In reply to: R. Steve Walz: "Re: War on humanity"
- Next in thread: R. Steve Walz: "Re: War on humanity"
- Reply: R. Steve Walz: "Re: War on humanity"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 10:57:38 GMT
"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:40CA7EBD.719D@armory.com...
> Captain wrote:
> >
> > "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote:
> >
> > The leaders of the soviet Union were convinvced that their way of
government
> > was best for "the masses",
> -------------
> The rich HERE are JUST SOOO SURE that what makes them rich will
> magically be the "best thing" for the rest of us, so self-deception
> abounds among the greedy. That's nothing surprising, since greed
> arises as a deep neurosis of a defective self-esteem.
On what scientific fact do you base this statement, Steve? Not wishing to
seem facetious; I'd really like to know. Is it, perhaps that you are not
rich, have no chance of becoming rich, and therefore have concluded that
there is something wrong with being rich.
Unless you are rich it is very hard to do good in this world. If you have
nothing, you cannot contribute much to the rest of the world. Having been
grindingly poor, broke and desperate, I know the feelings of the financially
un-empowered very well, and I remember that one of the worst aspects of that
stage in my life was the absolute inability to help others who obviously
needed help more than I did.
Compared to most of the inhabitants of the third world, you, Steve, are
fabulously rich. Does that make you greedy? Does that make you neurotic?
Or Don't you think about it much?
It isn't logical, Steve. You're arguing the general from the specific and
your arguement is " because some rich people are greedy, then all rich
people are greedy". And as for "greed arises as a deep neurosis of a
defective self-esteem.", where is the scientific basis of that statement.
Actually, in my case, the greed, that is the desire to have enough material
wealth not to have to worry about where the next meal is coming from, arose
from a determination to rise above the subsistence level and actually
achieve something in this world. If you think that's wrong, Steve, then all
I can say is that I feel sorry for you.
>
>
> > Brunowski said: "Beware of the men who know
> > they are right."
> -----------------
> Yes, yes. Like Brunowski.
>
>
> > and that is still very good advice. The Nazis knew they
> > were right. So did Pol Pot and his Kmer Rouge. So do Al Khaida.
> -------------------
> This is a defective semantic criticism:
> People who are wrong all think they are right,
> but then so do people who actually are right.
> And most people deny they think they are right merely to be politic.
No, Steve, most people actually realize that they may occasionally be wrong
from time to time. I know I am. Quite frankly, I've made some pretty bad
decisions in my time. Replying to a post from someone who is obviously
convinced that he is right all the time is probably one of them.
One sign of maturity is the ability to realise that you may be wrong. Think
on that, Steve, you may be wrong. All your semantics and arguement may,
actually be wrong. I know it would be painful to accept, but, if you are
honest with yourself, you have to consider the possibility. If you don't,
if you remain permanently convinced that you, and only you, are right, then
you become one of Brunowski's men to beware of.
>
>
> > Once you
> > know you are right, you can do anything you want to do, no matter how
> > destructive and reprehensible, because what you are doing is right.
> ---------------------------
> Or not destructive, if you think THAT'S right.
> And then you wouldn't criticize it.
>
> You see, what this points up is that all these criticisms are
> semantically defective because they are instances of selective
> attention.
The problem lies in not recognising that the possibilityof being wrong
exists. That is what was and is wrong with the people in my list, which is,
unfortunately, far from inclusive.
>
>
> > I'm afraid Mr Waltz knows he is right, so everone else must agree or be,
> > hmm, I wonder what word he'll come up with - "Purged?", "Banned?",
> > "Terminated with extreme prejudice?".
> --------------------------------
>> You're avoiding my concepts with ad hominem blathering.
Unfortunately, your contentions are inseparable from your personality, due
to the hectoring manner in which they are presented.
>
> And as for laughable employment, I don't need you,
You must be rich, then.
> You have no effect.
Then why, Steve, are you replying to my post?
However compelling your concepts might be, your manner of defending them, in
your replies to the posts which have critised them, gives me no
encouragement to commit time and effort to studying them. Your manner is
abusive and immature and quite definitely ad hominem. I see no reason to
expect your efforts in other areas to be more logical.
Anyway, why are you posting your stuff here? Isn't there a forum somewhere
where it would fit in far better?
Cap
- Next message: Captain: "Re: [OT:] Re: War on humanity"
- Previous message: RosalieM: "Re: I've dumped Linux and moved to Windows XP."
- In reply to: R. Steve Walz: "Re: War on humanity"
- Next in thread: R. Steve Walz: "Re: War on humanity"
- Reply: R. Steve Walz: "Re: War on humanity"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
