Whoah...I don't believe "all sides must be represented equally and fairly", unless of course one is claiming that all sides have been represented equally and fairly.
I totally respect Moore's right to spew his biased propaganda. He can ignore all alternative evidence or philosophy. I'll simply call him on that.
Definitely on board with this. And, for the record, I certainly don't believe MM is Hitler or anything like that. He's just another in a long line of propaganda artists who exist on all sides of the political spectrum.
In other words, "In the Nothingness" of your existence.
Whoah...I don't believe "all sides must be represented equally and fairly", unless of course one is claiming that all sides have been represented equally and fairly.
Interesting. I've seen you call people out on the board for focusing on a particular view, and not expressing all sides. (for example El Kabong and Byrnzie are two I can remember involving you) I'm referring to when those in question did not purport to speak for the whole overview.
hahahahahaaaaaaaaa
what say you, ffg??????????
i rememeber this well in both our cases, i kept saying i never claimed that every side was represented in my post, just mine and he would give me such shit about how i'm all but lying by not showing every single side in an issue and how it is my duty to do this!
good stuff
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
i rememeber this well in both our cases, i kept saying i never claimed that every side was represented in my post, just mine and he would give me such shit about how i'm all but lying by not showing every single side in an issue and how it is my duty to do this!
good stuff
Wasn't that thread about an educational system??? A system meant to give children a complete picture of Truth?
I'm sorry, but when one invokes the word truth, one is invoking a "complete picture" argument. This is no different than the Halliburton thread where you pretended that a list of Halliburton's mistakes represented the sum total of their accomplishments.
I'm not questioning Michael Moore's right (or your right) to speak, and speak on any subject and in any manner. I'm simply going to question the contradictions. I don't remember the exact specifics of the threads angelica mentions above and if I've contradicted myself here, then I certainly respect her (and your) questions about it.
To reiterate, and to make myself clear: one-sided bias is certainly acceptable as a form of speech. It is simply not acceptable along side claims of complete truth.
Wasn't that thread about an educational system??? A system meant to give children a complete picture of Truth?
I'm sorry, but when one invokes the word truth, one is invoking a "complete picture" argument. This is no different than the Halliburton thread where you pretended that a list of Halliburton's mistakes represented the sum total of their accomplishments.
I'm not questioning Michael Moore's right (or your right) to speak, and speak on any subject and in any manner. I'm simply going to question the contradictions. I don't remember the exact specifics of the threads angelica mentions above and if I've contradicted myself here, then I certainly respect her (and your) questions about it.
To reiterate, and to make myself clear: one-sided bias is certainly acceptable as a form of speech. It is simply not acceptable along side claims of complete truth.
no, i never said it represented the sum of their total accomplishments, i said i thought their abuses outweighed their positives to make them deserving of bonuses for their work in iraq....yeah, i think feeding our troops spoiled meat, dirty, untreated water (which they were paid to treat), double billing the government for work, charging for work and employees they never had or did...i think that should've meant they got no raise....in fact i posted a pretty long list of thier abuses
and no, it wasn't about education, it was in the 14 worst corporations thread
a few posts below it is your reply saying included in the 14 worst corporations list should also include:
"discuss why people buy their products, however, and what perceived benefits those products have????"
and you complained earlier about the list that
"And no mention of the fact that millions of people actually enjoy Coke?"
and somewhere on page 8 or 9 you complained about me not giving a 'complete picture' of these corporations...that posting a list of he 14 biggest abusers was wrong b/c there was no mention of the good things they did...
you also said:
"All I'm asking for is honesty. If you want to damn a corporation, do it. If you want to educate people about corporations, present information that covers numerous sides of the issue."
you also said it was 'intellectual dishonesty' for me to talk about halliburton and the bad things it did w/o posting as much positive things they have done
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
no, i never said it represented the sum of their total accomplishments, i said i thought their abuses outweighed their positives to make them deserving of bonuses for their work in iraq....yeah, i think feeding our troops spoiled meat, dirty, untreated water (which they were paid to treat), double billing the government for work, charging for work and employees they never had or did...i think that should've meant they got no raise....in fact i posted a pretty long list of thier abuses
and no, it wasn't about education, it was in the 14 worst corporations thread
a few posts below it is your reply saying included in the 14 worst corporations list should also include:
"discuss why people buy their products, however, and what perceived benefits those products have????"
and you complained earlier about the list that
"And no mention of the fact that millions of people actually enjoy Coke?"
and somewhere on page 8 or 9 you complained about me not giving a 'complete picture' of these corporations...that posting a list of he 14 biggest abusers was wrong b/c there was no mention of the good things they did...
you also said:
"All I'm asking for is honesty. If you want to damn a corporation, do it. If you want to educate people about corporations, present information that covers numerous sides of the issue."
you also said it was 'intellectual dishonesty' for me to talk about halliburton and the bad things it did w/o posting as much positive things they have done
Here's the thing, Kabong. You're not seeking to "educate", and neither is Moore. You simply fall back on the "education" arguments when people question the agenda you're trying to push attached to the half-fact you present.
The very concept "14 worst corporations" would imply, again, a complete picture of 14 corporations. It's not "14 worst corporate acts", right? This is insidious language being used.
Anyone who hates Michael Moore just has a big ol bug up their ass in general.
Call your local roto-rooter or something...
I mean ...you don't have to agree with him...but the haters?...lol.....fucking wierd in the head you are...
....sorry....I call em like I see em...
hehe...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Here's the thing, Kabong. You're not seeking to "educate", and neither is Moore. You simply fall back on the "education" arguments when people question the agenda you're trying to push attached to the half-fact you present.
The very concept "14 worst corporations" would imply, again, a complete picture of 14 corporations. It's not "14 worst corporate acts", right? This is insidious language being used.
what is my agenda?
and how do you know this is my agenda?
annnnnd i took it to mean the 14 corporations that act the worst....not 14 individual acts....if there was nothing to back up the title i could see your point, but alas....the article posted gave PLENTY of reasoning and i gave PLENTY of abuses of haliburton and why the original poster of that article and myself thought these things....you happen to disagree
seems like a lot of bs assumptions, to me
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
i rememeber this well in both our cases, i kept saying i never claimed that every side was represented in my post, just mine and he would give me such shit about how i'm all but lying by not showing every single side in an issue and how it is my duty to do this!
good stuff
Today I specifically remembered that he has also accused Abook of not telling the truth by representing a specific argument from a certain "side", too. I remember at the time I publicly posted and defended both Abook and Byrnzie's right to do so, without objectively representing everything, and that it was fully accurate for them to represent whatever part of a debate they chose to.
And I'm not even talking that you guys are representing your own opinions in such cases, but for example representing the people of Iraq alone, etc. I've seen you being called on that because you were not also representing the other side. This is why I'm disputing farfromglorified's assertion that he only disputes people who claim to tell the whole story, but only tell half--because I KNOW you guys have been representing the under-represented aspects of such stories, and not claiming to represent the entire overview. In such cases, even though I love the truth, sometimes it comes in the form of making known a little known or little accepted but highly relevent aspect to a story. Such as representing the underdog whose position has been minimized. And I love when you guys do that.
It is always accurate to represent within whatever context one chooses to. If it doesn't live up to someone else's contextual view, such as farfromglorified's, that's not your responsibility.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Here's the thing, Kabong. You're not seeking to "educate", and neither is Moore. You simply fall back on the "education" arguments when people question the agenda you're trying to push attached to the half-fact you present.
The very concept "14 worst corporations" would imply, again, a complete picture of 14 corporations. It's not "14 worst corporate acts", right? This is insidious language being used.
See. Here you are doing it again. If it's not fully "objective", meaning representing all sides, you take issue with it, because you personally do not value humanizing a particular stance. As for judging El Kabong's "agenda", that's reading in on your part. If you can logically prove a flaw in what he says, you fully call him on it, and often/usually he can come back and his points fully stand. Once you are reading in your "guess"/opinion on his agenda, you are getting personal, and really, if his logical points still stand, no matter what his agenda is, really it doesn't matter. Really, the key is, imo, that you don't grasp this type of perspective or the validity of such arguments that you claim you are not against, while proving right here that you ARE against it.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
From your half-fact attached to conclusions that would require all facts.
annnnnd i took it to mean the 14 corporations that act the worst....not 14 individual acts....if there was nothing to back up the title i could see your point, but alas....the article posted gave PLENTY of reasoning and i gave PLENTY of abuses of haliburton and why the original poster of that article and myself thought these things....you happen to disagree
You know what is so frustrating to me?? Is that I've stood behind the validity of your base views, too, to numerous people who I am close with on this board. I get that sometimes they don't see where you are coming from, but the ironic part is that you don't get the validity of what they are saying either. All of these views can co-exist harmoniously, if you can wrap your mind around the objective level AND the existential levels of awareness.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
See. Here you are doing it again. If it's not fully "objective", meaning representing all sides, you take issue with it, because you personally do not value humanizing a particular stance. As for judging El Kabong's "agenda", that's reading in on your part. If you can logically prove a flaw in what he says, you fully call him on it, and often/usually he can come back and his points fully stand. Once you are reading in your "guess"/opinion on his agenda, you are getting personal, and really, if his logical points still stand, no matter what his agenda is, really it doesn't matter. Really, the key is, imo, that you don't grasp this type of perspective or the validity of such arguments that you claim you are not against, while proving right here that you ARE against it.
Hehe...are you not just as guilty of the above here?
You know what is so frustrating to me?? Is that I've stood behind the validity of your base views, too, to numerous people who I am close with on this board. I get that sometimes they don't see where you are coming from, but the ironic part is that you don't get the validity of what they are saying either. All of these views can co-exist harmoniously, if you can wrap your mind around the objective level AND the existential levels of awareness.
As you indicated above, I'm not responsible for your "contextual views", angelica.
I completely see the validity of what those I disagree with are saying, up until the point they attempt to extend their concepts in contradictory directions.
If someone disagrees with me, they aren't necessarily wrong, angelica. They only become wrong when they think their non-objective disagreements somehow can extend beyond their thoughts or actions and become my responsibilities.
You know what is so frustrating to me?? Its that I've stood behind the validity of your base views, too, to numerous people who I am close with on this board, many times privately. I get that sometimes they don't see where you are coming from, and on this board, you are sometimes a lone voice with some fundamental logic that us "idealist" types don't so naturally see. But the ironic part is that you don't get the validity of what they are saying either. All of these views do co-exist harmoniously, if you can wrap your mind around the objective level AND the existential levels of awareness at the same time. Integrating these conceptual points of view takes time and human personal growth in order to perceive. It's so frustrating to see that until that happens, these two views will be at odds with each other, when in actuality they are not. There is so many "I'm right" and "you're wrong" views on this board that are about personal human individual perspectives, and not realistic truths. Why bring the personal judgment into it??
edit: wow...it's weird that I inadvertently and prematurely posted part of this post before it was finished....
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Can you be specific, please. If you can prove that I am, I'd love to own up to it.
You just seem to be reading into my motives and mind too. If people's words don't represent their actual meanings, all we have is guesses and opinions. Are my opinions not "humanized"? Are you not "getting personal"? If "agendas don't matter", what does bias?
I'm not sure at this point what I'm even debating, so I'll just leave it at this:
What I originally meant by the following statement:
"Whoah...I don't believe 'all sides must be represented equally and fairly', unless of course one is claiming that all sides have been represented equally and fairly."
was that no one has some inherent obligation to not speak from biased perspective unless they're also claiming some non-biased truth or perspective. That would be contradictory. Certainly I have called out posters here for doing this, including you angelica, and I stand by that. But those actions were based on my perceptions of the language people use. And if those perceptions were incorrect and people were simply unapologetically putting forth their biased perspective, then I was wrong to call them out on that contradiction.
I'm not sure at this point what I'm even debating, so I'll just leave it at this:
What I originally meant by the following statement:
"Whoah...I don't believe 'all sides must be represented equally and fairly', unless of course one is claiming that all sides have been represented equally and fairly."
was that no one has some inherent obligation to not speak from biased perspective unless they're also claiming some non-biased truth or perspective. That would be contradictory. Certainly I have called out posters here for doing this, including you angelica, and I stand by that. But those actions were based on my perceptions of the language people use. And if those perceptions were incorrect and people were simply unapologetically putting forth their biased perspective, then I was wrong to call them out on that contradiction.
Yeah, and again, what I referred to in terms of El Kabong, Abook and Byrnzie was not even what I considered "biased" views. They were subjective views of a certain angle within the whole picture, for example, the people of Iraq or Palestinian people--as from the perspective or the groups in question. I don't consider for El Kabong, or Abook or Byrnzie to put forth such a view to be biased, since none of them have a personal stake in representing such a view, in a personally biased sense. I believe it to be truthful and accurate to represent a lesser known or acknowledged view, particularly, when in the mass perceptions, such views are minimized, ignored or distorted to serve the mainstream purposes. In such cases, the mainstream American view is biased and distorted, based on the purposes of the people, and for those to step out of the box and to represent the lesser known view, well it's definitely called for imo. So I applaud anyone who does so, especially when as a minority view, they are castigated widely for speaking such truths. I've heard each of the above be assailed with all kinds of derogatory names for taking such a less-"acceptable" stance. Now granted, it is a biased view for them in the sense that some people are naturally personally predisposed to think in a certain way that makes them personally notice and care about the lesser known view. I don't see it biased in anyway that they are distorting the truth, in essence. The way the distortions come in are how I see them come in for you, farfromglorified. By individuals getting frustrated and angry and getting emotional, and using derogatory terms and attitudes towards the opponent's argument and giving themselves license to excuse imbalanced nuances due to personal flaws. And yes, this is what Michael Moore does. An example that leaps out at me was his treatment of Charleton Heston, which agree or disagree with the man's stance on guns--the bottom line is, once you denigrate another human being as Michael Moore did by crossing lines with him, you become part of the problem.
Do I also do this? You bet I do. Do I accept that I do? No. Do I give myself permission to do it? No. Do I justify doing so? No. Do I give myself license to do so? No. The reason I can't justify any of this is due to my awareness that psychologically, I'm aware that as long as I'm making the other guy wrong so that I can be "right", I'm not at the "higher" levels of psychological integration. When in the "right/wrong" game, we're all going in circles. As I tell my boyfriend the few times a week when he takes issues with my contradictions...I'm a human--I'm as flawed and contradictory as anyone. The only option in recognizing how short I fall of my own ideals is humility.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
You just seem to be reading into my motives and mind too. If people's words don't represent their actual meanings, all we have is guesses and opinions. Are my opinions not "humanized"? Are you not "getting personal"? If "agendas don't matter", what does bias?
I don't think I was minimizing the value of your points when pointing out the personal aspects of what you are saying. It seems like when you read into El Kabong's stance for example, you are not separating the validity of the stance from any personal distortions that you might see involved. But at this point in this discussion, I don't really have specifics. I'm kind of tired, and have to get up in 3 1/2 hours, so I'm not checking details much. Maybe I'm being inaccurate here, but I have the impression you are using the personal stuff to take down El Kabong's points, themselves, when it can't work that way--considering valid points stand on their own.
What I mean is that even if El Kabong were the angriest person on the planet, if what he's saying is accurate, it stands as accurate. Same with Michael Moore. That much cannot be diminished. (and honestly, El Kabong doesn't strike me as that angry, much less as the angriest guy on the planet. He's certainly human, and I think he does a great job being balanced in a lot of his presentation. When I started on this board, his logic,reasoning and sense of idealist truth intimidated me.)
For the record, I read into people's motives all the time. I'm very good at glossing over what I can't prove, such as intent, even when it's screamingly palpable. Again, I'm human and in terms of argument, and logic, truths and realities get fragmented into disconnected shards, and distortion always takes place to a degree, since no thing can exist in a vaccum and separate from the All. So, again, I'm as susceptible as anyone, and I personally feel serious discomfort when I recognize the folly of my own foolish ego.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I'm sorry, but when one invokes the word truth, one is invoking a "complete picture" argument. This is no different than the Halliburton thread where you pretended that a list of Halliburton's mistakes represented the sum total of their accomplishments.
What????????
There are many contexts of truth. This is where you don't get to define the context of a person's argument.
Because someone goes out of their way to focus on mistakes, that's okay. This is a great example. I don't know the argument in question, but what you're saying here is something I've seen numerous times from you: Because someone presents one case, you uphold it to being a different case where they fall short. And what they fall short of is the straw man expectation you have for them. It's not Kabong's case that is flawed--it's that you're confusing your own argument with his....If you want to present the accomplishments of Halliburton, go to town. Kabong has no responsiblity to do so. Further, it's considered co-dependent to actually blur the boundaries of the point you see that "should" be made, and the one he's actually making.
I'd love to hear where Kabong "pretended" the mistakes of Halliburton represented the sum total of their accomplishments....specifically....cause at this point, again, it seems like you are confusing his and your own argument. It's YOUR responsibility to present the opposing view. And if you don't, you can't interpret your own lack as being about Kabong pretending something. He's not here to live up to your expectation. And if you present the proof of Kabong's "pretending" and I'm off base here, I'll take this part all back. I'm jumping the gun here to make my point, because I've seen you do this before, so you're offering me this perfect example.
To reiterate, and to make myself clear: one-sided bias is certainly acceptable as a form of speech. It is simply not acceptable along side claims of complete truth.
This is where I agree that one side or many sides does not equal the whole truth. There are certainly truths within sides, though, so it seems you and I disagree on that. And I know I'm personally guilty that in order to make my points and to make them clearly, I sacrifice the whole truth all the time. And consciously, as well. I get tenacious and tunnel-visioned in my intent to make a point that I sacrifice the truth. I'm pretty certain the whole truth cannot be represented through words, logic and through argument, so as long as we're debating, we're all separating from the truth. And of course, this happens in degrees.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I'd love to hear where Kabong "pretended" the mistakes of Halliburton represented the sum total of their accomplishments....specifically....cause at this point, again, it seems like you are confusing his and your own argument. It's YOUR responsibility to present the opposing view. And if you don't, you can't interpret your own lack as being about Kabong pretending something. He's not here to live up to your expectation. And if you present the proof of Kabong's "pretending" and I'm off base here, I'll take this part all back. I'm jumping the gun here to make my point, because I've seen you do this before, so you're offering me this perfect example.
I would love to see where i pretended this, too! i've even asked a few times.
what it was is i posted a list of abuses and said i think these should disqualify them from the bonuses they received for their work in iraq. if ffg thinks they deserve the bonuses he is free to list them, and i've told him as much. instead he acts as if it's my duty to do it, otherwise i'm being intellectually dishonest.
didn't know i was here to debate myself!
thank you angelica, for your level of understanding
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
I'm not sure at this point what I'm here to defend. If you simply want to criticize me or my approach, you don't really need me for that nor do I feel obligated to defend my own personality here.
If you're here to attempt to rectify a contradiction that I created, then I do feel that I am obligated to be involved. And I think I've adequately addressed that here by saying that anyone, be it Michael Moore, angelica, or Kabong, is free to post bias. But they aren't going to pretend it is unbiased without me questioning that pretension. Kabong, you and I have gone back and forth for pages in threads where all I wanted you to admit was that you weren't painting a complete picture when criticizing others for their incomplete representation of fact. If you weren't claiming "complete truth" in your arguments, then why wouldn't you just come out and say as much when challenged?
Regardless, I'll simply not do this in the future. There are plenty of intellectual ways to attack bias masquerading as greater truths.
I'm not sure at this point what I'm here to defend. If you simply want to criticize me or my approach, you don't really need me for that nor do I feel obligated to defend my own personality here.
If you're here to attempt to rectify a contradiction that I created, then I do feel that I am obligated to be involved. And I think I've adequately addressed that here by saying that anyone, be it Michael Moore, angelica, or Kabong, is free to post bias. But they aren't going to pretend it is unbiased without me questioning that pretension. Kabong, you and I have gone back and forth for pages in threads where all I wanted you to admit was that you weren't painting a complete picture when criticizing others for their incomplete representation of fact. If you weren't claiming "complete truth" in your arguments, then why wouldn't you just come out and say as much when challenged?
Regardless, I'll simply not do this in the future. There are plenty of intellectual ways to attack bias masquerading as greater truths.
I pointed to some blind spots, including your own, to get them on the table. I made my points. You're free to respond or not.
Imo, all is fair in debating, whether I get frustrated or not, considering that when any one of us is going to represent an imbalanced view, we actually create the conditions that pull to us our opposition.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
"The fact the US didn't impose sanctions on the Batista dictatorship and many other dictatorships it supports, lead some scholars to believe that the reason for the embargo was revealed in a declassified 1964 State Department document which declares Fidel Castro to be an intolerable threat because he "represents a successful defiance of the United States, a negation of our whole hemispheric policy of almost a century and a half," since the Monroe Doctrine declared that no challenge to U.S. dominance would be tolerated in the hemisphere."
I'm not sure at this point what I'm here to defend. If you simply want to criticize me or my approach, you don't really need me for that nor do I feel obligated to defend my own personality here.
If you're here to attempt to rectify a contradiction that I created, then I do feel that I am obligated to be involved. And I think I've adequately addressed that here by saying that anyone, be it Michael Moore, angelica, or Kabong, is free to post bias. But they aren't going to pretend it is unbiased without me questioning that pretension. Kabong, you and I have gone back and forth for pages in threads where all I wanted you to admit was that you weren't painting a complete picture when criticizing others for their incomplete representation of fact. If you weren't claiming "complete truth" in your arguments, then why wouldn't you just come out and say as much when challenged?
Regardless, I'll simply not do this in the future. There are plenty of intellectual ways to attack bias masquerading as greater truths.
when did i say what i said about haliburton was all there was to know about them???
or did i say the abuses i listed make me think they don't deserve a bonus??
when di i ever say i was posting the complete history of and all you need to know about haliburton? or was i posting what i thought was wrong w/ them? i never claimed anything of the sort and whoever on here does this? no one
i've asked you before; when you cry about the tax system and holding a gun to your head, do you EVER post the positives of our being taxed? do you ever mention the roads, emergency services...? no, you just talk about how bad it is for you from your prespective
no one even claimed that 14 worst corporations thread was a complete history of them. you were the only one demaning a complete history of them.
it just seems contradictory compared to your statement in this thread...i guess you don't care for all sides to be represented unless it's me, byrnzie, abook....? that's how it seems
in fact, here's one of your first replies in that thread, and notice NO ONE claimed complete truth or anything
'If this was "spreading of knowledge" you'd do it in an unbiased fashion. You'd post the upsides to all these corporations. Your "knowledge" tells us that Caterpiller Corporation killed a peace activist. Yet it makes no mention of the fact that the homes of nearly every peace activist and the hospitals in which they birthed their children were built using a piece of their equipment.'
there you claim ALL sides must be represented just to 'spread' truth, where does it say only for 'complete' truth??
you also said in the thread your problem was i wasn't 'spreading balanced info', nowhere is complete anything mentioned, your problem was i wasn't posting the good things those companies did
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Comments
Oh, that fucker, see? special interests? Why can't I do the same?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
In other words, "In the Nothingness" of your existence.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
hahahahahaaaaaaaaa
what say you, ffg??????????
i rememeber this well in both our cases, i kept saying i never claimed that every side was represented in my post, just mine and he would give me such shit about how i'm all but lying by not showing every single side in an issue and how it is my duty to do this!
good stuff
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Wasn't that thread about an educational system??? A system meant to give children a complete picture of Truth?
I'm sorry, but when one invokes the word truth, one is invoking a "complete picture" argument. This is no different than the Halliburton thread where you pretended that a list of Halliburton's mistakes represented the sum total of their accomplishments.
I'm not questioning Michael Moore's right (or your right) to speak, and speak on any subject and in any manner. I'm simply going to question the contradictions. I don't remember the exact specifics of the threads angelica mentions above and if I've contradicted myself here, then I certainly respect her (and your) questions about it.
To reiterate, and to make myself clear: one-sided bias is certainly acceptable as a form of speech. It is simply not acceptable along side claims of complete truth.
no, i never said it represented the sum of their total accomplishments, i said i thought their abuses outweighed their positives to make them deserving of bonuses for their work in iraq....yeah, i think feeding our troops spoiled meat, dirty, untreated water (which they were paid to treat), double billing the government for work, charging for work and employees they never had or did...i think that should've meant they got no raise....in fact i posted a pretty long list of thier abuses
and no, it wasn't about education, it was in the 14 worst corporations thread
a few posts below it is your reply saying included in the 14 worst corporations list should also include:
"discuss why people buy their products, however, and what perceived benefits those products have????"
and you complained earlier about the list that
"And no mention of the fact that millions of people actually enjoy Coke?"
and somewhere on page 8 or 9 you complained about me not giving a 'complete picture' of these corporations...that posting a list of he 14 biggest abusers was wrong b/c there was no mention of the good things they did...
you also said:
"All I'm asking for is honesty. If you want to damn a corporation, do it. If you want to educate people about corporations, present information that covers numerous sides of the issue."
you also said it was 'intellectual dishonesty' for me to talk about halliburton and the bad things it did w/o posting as much positive things they have done
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Here's the thing, Kabong. You're not seeking to "educate", and neither is Moore. You simply fall back on the "education" arguments when people question the agenda you're trying to push attached to the half-fact you present.
The very concept "14 worst corporations" would imply, again, a complete picture of 14 corporations. It's not "14 worst corporate acts", right? This is insidious language being used.
Call your local roto-rooter or something...
I mean ...you don't have to agree with him...but the haters?...lol.....fucking wierd in the head you are...
....sorry....I call em like I see em...
hehe...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
what is my agenda?
and how do you know this is my agenda?
annnnnd i took it to mean the 14 corporations that act the worst....not 14 individual acts....if there was nothing to back up the title i could see your point, but alas....the article posted gave PLENTY of reasoning and i gave PLENTY of abuses of haliburton and why the original poster of that article and myself thought these things....you happen to disagree
seems like a lot of bs assumptions, to me
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
And I'm not even talking that you guys are representing your own opinions in such cases, but for example representing the people of Iraq alone, etc. I've seen you being called on that because you were not also representing the other side. This is why I'm disputing farfromglorified's assertion that he only disputes people who claim to tell the whole story, but only tell half--because I KNOW you guys have been representing the under-represented aspects of such stories, and not claiming to represent the entire overview. In such cases, even though I love the truth, sometimes it comes in the form of making known a little known or little accepted but highly relevent aspect to a story. Such as representing the underdog whose position has been minimized. And I love when you guys do that.
It is always accurate to represent within whatever context one chooses to. If it doesn't live up to someone else's contextual view, such as farfromglorified's, that's not your responsibility.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I absolutely agree with this.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Social control.
From your half-fact attached to conclusions that would require all facts.
Ok.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Hehe...are you not just as guilty of the above here?
If my "guess" is wrong, I'll totally accept that.
As you indicated above, I'm not responsible for your "contextual views", angelica.
I completely see the validity of what those I disagree with are saying, up until the point they attempt to extend their concepts in contradictory directions.
If someone disagrees with me, they aren't necessarily wrong, angelica. They only become wrong when they think their non-objective disagreements somehow can extend beyond their thoughts or actions and become my responsibilities.
edit: wow...it's weird that I inadvertently and prematurely posted part of this post before it was finished....
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
You just seem to be reading into my motives and mind too. If people's words don't represent their actual meanings, all we have is guesses and opinions. Are my opinions not "humanized"? Are you not "getting personal"? If "agendas don't matter", what does bias?
What I originally meant by the following statement:
"Whoah...I don't believe 'all sides must be represented equally and fairly', unless of course one is claiming that all sides have been represented equally and fairly."
was that no one has some inherent obligation to not speak from biased perspective unless they're also claiming some non-biased truth or perspective. That would be contradictory. Certainly I have called out posters here for doing this, including you angelica, and I stand by that. But those actions were based on my perceptions of the language people use. And if those perceptions were incorrect and people were simply unapologetically putting forth their biased perspective, then I was wrong to call them out on that contradiction.
Yeah, and again, what I referred to in terms of El Kabong, Abook and Byrnzie was not even what I considered "biased" views. They were subjective views of a certain angle within the whole picture, for example, the people of Iraq or Palestinian people--as from the perspective or the groups in question. I don't consider for El Kabong, or Abook or Byrnzie to put forth such a view to be biased, since none of them have a personal stake in representing such a view, in a personally biased sense. I believe it to be truthful and accurate to represent a lesser known or acknowledged view, particularly, when in the mass perceptions, such views are minimized, ignored or distorted to serve the mainstream purposes. In such cases, the mainstream American view is biased and distorted, based on the purposes of the people, and for those to step out of the box and to represent the lesser known view, well it's definitely called for imo. So I applaud anyone who does so, especially when as a minority view, they are castigated widely for speaking such truths. I've heard each of the above be assailed with all kinds of derogatory names for taking such a less-"acceptable" stance. Now granted, it is a biased view for them in the sense that some people are naturally personally predisposed to think in a certain way that makes them personally notice and care about the lesser known view. I don't see it biased in anyway that they are distorting the truth, in essence. The way the distortions come in are how I see them come in for you, farfromglorified. By individuals getting frustrated and angry and getting emotional, and using derogatory terms and attitudes towards the opponent's argument and giving themselves license to excuse imbalanced nuances due to personal flaws. And yes, this is what Michael Moore does. An example that leaps out at me was his treatment of Charleton Heston, which agree or disagree with the man's stance on guns--the bottom line is, once you denigrate another human being as Michael Moore did by crossing lines with him, you become part of the problem.
Do I also do this? You bet I do. Do I accept that I do? No. Do I give myself permission to do it? No. Do I justify doing so? No. Do I give myself license to do so? No. The reason I can't justify any of this is due to my awareness that psychologically, I'm aware that as long as I'm making the other guy wrong so that I can be "right", I'm not at the "higher" levels of psychological integration. When in the "right/wrong" game, we're all going in circles. As I tell my boyfriend the few times a week when he takes issues with my contradictions...I'm a human--I'm as flawed and contradictory as anyone. The only option in recognizing how short I fall of my own ideals is humility.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I don't think I was minimizing the value of your points when pointing out the personal aspects of what you are saying. It seems like when you read into El Kabong's stance for example, you are not separating the validity of the stance from any personal distortions that you might see involved. But at this point in this discussion, I don't really have specifics. I'm kind of tired, and have to get up in 3 1/2 hours, so I'm not checking details much. Maybe I'm being inaccurate here, but I have the impression you are using the personal stuff to take down El Kabong's points, themselves, when it can't work that way--considering valid points stand on their own.
What I mean is that even if El Kabong were the angriest person on the planet, if what he's saying is accurate, it stands as accurate. Same with Michael Moore. That much cannot be diminished. (and honestly, El Kabong doesn't strike me as that angry, much less as the angriest guy on the planet.
For the record, I read into people's motives all the time. I'm very good at glossing over what I can't prove, such as intent, even when it's screamingly palpable. Again, I'm human and in terms of argument, and logic, truths and realities get fragmented into disconnected shards, and distortion always takes place to a degree, since no thing can exist in a vaccum and separate from the All. So, again, I'm as susceptible as anyone, and I personally feel serious discomfort when I recognize the folly of my own foolish ego.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
There are many contexts of truth. This is where you don't get to define the context of a person's argument.
Because someone goes out of their way to focus on mistakes, that's okay. This is a great example. I don't know the argument in question, but what you're saying here is something I've seen numerous times from you: Because someone presents one case, you uphold it to being a different case where they fall short. And what they fall short of is the straw man expectation you have for them. It's not Kabong's case that is flawed--it's that you're confusing your own argument with his....If you want to present the accomplishments of Halliburton, go to town. Kabong has no responsiblity to do so. Further, it's considered co-dependent to actually blur the boundaries of the point you see that "should" be made, and the one he's actually making.
I'd love to hear where Kabong "pretended" the mistakes of Halliburton represented the sum total of their accomplishments....specifically....cause at this point, again, it seems like you are confusing his and your own argument. It's YOUR responsibility to present the opposing view. And if you don't, you can't interpret your own lack as being about Kabong pretending something. He's not here to live up to your expectation. And if you present the proof of Kabong's "pretending" and I'm off base here, I'll take this part all back.
This is where I agree that one side or many sides does not equal the whole truth. There are certainly truths within sides, though, so it seems you and I disagree on that. And I know I'm personally guilty that in order to make my points and to make them clearly, I sacrifice the whole truth all the time. And consciously, as well. I get tenacious and tunnel-visioned in my intent to make a point that I sacrifice the truth. I'm pretty certain the whole truth cannot be represented through words, logic and through argument, so as long as we're debating, we're all separating from the truth. And of course, this happens in degrees.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I would love to see where i pretended this, too! i've even asked a few times.
what it was is i posted a list of abuses and said i think these should disqualify them from the bonuses they received for their work in iraq. if ffg thinks they deserve the bonuses he is free to list them, and i've told him as much. instead he acts as if it's my duty to do it, otherwise i'm being intellectually dishonest.
didn't know i was here to debate myself!
thank you angelica, for your level of understanding
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
I'm not sure at this point what I'm here to defend. If you simply want to criticize me or my approach, you don't really need me for that nor do I feel obligated to defend my own personality here.
If you're here to attempt to rectify a contradiction that I created, then I do feel that I am obligated to be involved. And I think I've adequately addressed that here by saying that anyone, be it Michael Moore, angelica, or Kabong, is free to post bias. But they aren't going to pretend it is unbiased without me questioning that pretension. Kabong, you and I have gone back and forth for pages in threads where all I wanted you to admit was that you weren't painting a complete picture when criticizing others for their incomplete representation of fact. If you weren't claiming "complete truth" in your arguments, then why wouldn't you just come out and say as much when challenged?
Regardless, I'll simply not do this in the future. There are plenty of intellectual ways to attack bias masquerading as greater truths.
Everyone knows this thing is completely built on tobacco and sugar lobbies at this point.
China has favored nation status right????
Honestly, I don't want tax money going to investigate this crap. It's not that big a deal.
I look at it like a spoiled brat holding a grudge.
Make your life a mission - not an intermission. - Arnold Gasglow
Imo, all is fair in debating, whether I get frustrated or not, considering that when any one of us is going to represent an imbalanced view, we actually create the conditions that pull to us our opposition.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_embargo
when did i say what i said about haliburton was all there was to know about them???
or did i say the abuses i listed make me think they don't deserve a bonus??
when di i ever say i was posting the complete history of and all you need to know about haliburton? or was i posting what i thought was wrong w/ them? i never claimed anything of the sort and whoever on here does this? no one
i've asked you before; when you cry about the tax system and holding a gun to your head, do you EVER post the positives of our being taxed? do you ever mention the roads, emergency services...? no, you just talk about how bad it is for you from your prespective
no one even claimed that 14 worst corporations thread was a complete history of them. you were the only one demaning a complete history of them.
it just seems contradictory compared to your statement in this thread...i guess you don't care for all sides to be represented unless it's me, byrnzie, abook....? that's how it seems
in fact, here's one of your first replies in that thread, and notice NO ONE claimed complete truth or anything
'If this was "spreading of knowledge" you'd do it in an unbiased fashion. You'd post the upsides to all these corporations. Your "knowledge" tells us that Caterpiller Corporation killed a peace activist. Yet it makes no mention of the fact that the homes of nearly every peace activist and the hospitals in which they birthed their children were built using a piece of their equipment.'
there you claim ALL sides must be represented just to 'spread' truth, where does it say only for 'complete' truth??
you also said in the thread your problem was i wasn't 'spreading balanced info', nowhere is complete anything mentioned, your problem was i wasn't posting the good things those companies did
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way