Authorities investigate Moore on Cuba

angelica · May 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

angelica · May 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

El_Kabong · May 2007

angelica wrote:

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

farfromglorified · May 2007

Angelica, Kabong,

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.

Pacomc79 · May 2007

so, once again, is there any really good reason to continue this ridiculous embargo?

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.

mammasan · May 2007

Pacomc79 wrote:

so, once again, is there any really good reason to continue this ridiculous embargo?

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.

BrinkofForever · May 2007

onelongsong wrote:

furthermore; i'd make an example of him.

Cool. Sounds Hitleresque.

angelica · May 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

Angelica, Kabong,

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.

mammasan · May 2007

"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."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_embargo

El_Kabong · May 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

Angelica, Kabong,

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

farfromglorified · May 2007

El_Kabong wrote:

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

Kabong, you hardly ever answer questions directly, so it's a little silly to ask me the above questions. Every debate I have with you, you approach issues in a sideways fashion. You have likely never said any of the above. Yet you'll post the words of others that do and you won't disown them and you won't directly agree with them, yet everything you do say would lead one to the latter.

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?

You're asking me if I discuss the positive consequences of taxation? Rarely do I do that, but I don't discuss the negative consequences much either. I discuss the philosophy of taxation and that is its means, not its ends.

do you ever mention the roads, emergency services...?

Of course. They tend to come up in every conversation I have on taxation.

no, you just talk about how bad it is for you from your prespective

No. I spend more time talking about how they're good from other people's perspectives, just like how any theft is good for a theif. Tell me what you know about my actual taxes, if I talk about them only from "my perspective".

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.

Ok. I actually went back and looked at this thread. Ironically, that is the thread you called me out in right after complaining about people calling you out in threads. Furthermore, right away in that thread, I made my position on this clear:

"This isn't the 'spreading of knowledge'. I'm not going to allow people to hide behind that argument when they're obviously pushing a point. The man who hides behind 'spreading knowledge' is a man who knows that a disconnect exists between his conclusions and his facts.

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. Does this fact justify the death of a peach activist? No. But is it worth something in the face of language like 'evildoer' and 'horrific'? Yes."

You were the one accusing people right away in that thread of having "an agenda", and then you proceeded to start pushing your own. Your entire concept in that thread was that corporations were engineering wars and that the simple fact that they profitted somehow proved this to be the case. That begs the question: what do their other actions then prove? But you didn't want to consider that there. Furthermore, the blanket statements of "evil" along with other assertions being tossed around implied greater truths that would have required a much more complete picture.

This was in no way contradictory to what I said in this thread, and I apologize for even entertaining the idea that it would have been. It's entirely consistent with what I've said here: those who proclaim great truths cannot present biased ones. In others words, someone who professes that a corporation or a man or anything else is "evil" needs to consider their actions, not just the actions that can be construed to fit their preexisting bias. And those who make claims about "engineered wars" need to present actual evidence of engineering.

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

Hehe...I call out a conservative poster on exactly the same issue in exactly the same thread. Unfortunately, he didn't feel like debating the issue for 7 pages.

my2hands · May 2007

off topic:

what alternative to taxation do you support? and how would this be beneficial?

farfromglorified · May 2007

my2hands wrote:

off topic:

what alternative to taxation do you support?

I'm not sure I understand this question. Alternative for what purpose?

my2hands · May 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

I'm not sure I understand this question. Alternative for what purpose?

how do you propose our society will function without taxation

farfromglorified · May 2007

my2hands wrote:

how do you propose our society will function without taxation

By "function" I'm assuming you mean something like "end poverty"??? Without taxation, that function will not happen. But, it doesn't happen with taxation either, so I'm not sure where that leaves us.

If this doesn't address your question, let me know what you mean by "function".

Abookamongstthemany · May 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

Kabong, you hardly ever answer questions directly, so it's a little silly to ask me the above questions. Every debate I have with you, you approach issues in a sideways fashion. You have likely never said any of the above. Yet you'll post the words of others that do and you won't disown them and you won't directly agree with them, yet everything you do say would lead one to the latter.

You're asking me if I discuss the positive consequences of taxation? Rarely do I do that, but I don't discuss the negative consequences much either. I discuss the philosophy of taxation and that is its means, not its ends.

Of course. They tend to come up in every conversation I have on taxation.

No. I spend more time talking about how they're good from other people's perspectives, just like how any theft is good for a theif. Tell me what you know about my actual taxes, if I talk about them only from "my perspective".

Ok. I actually went back and looked at this thread. Ironically, that is the thread you called me out in right after complaining about people calling you out in threads. Furthermore, right away in that thread, I made my position on this clear:

"This isn't the 'spreading of knowledge'. I'm not going to allow people to hide behind that argument when they're obviously pushing a point. The man who hides behind 'spreading knowledge' is a man who knows that a disconnect exists between his conclusions and his facts.

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. Does this fact justify the death of a peach activist? No. But is it worth something in the face of language like 'evildoer' and 'horrific'? Yes."

You were the one accusing people right away in that thread of having "an agenda", and then you proceeded to start pushing your own. Your entire concept in that thread was that corporations were engineering wars and that the simple fact that they profitted somehow proved this to be the case. That begs the question: what do their other actions then prove? But you didn't want to consider that there. Furthermore, the blanket statements of "evil" along with other assertions being tossed around implied greater truths that would have required a much more complete picture.

This was in no way contradictory to what I said in this thread, and I apologize for even entertaining the idea that it would have been. It's entirely consistent with what I've said here: those who proclaim great truths cannot present biased ones. In others words, someone who professes that a corporation or a man or anything else is "evil" needs to consider their actions, not just the actions that can be construed to fit their preexisting bias. And those who make claims about "engineered wars" need to present actual evidence of engineering.

Hehe...I call out a conservative poster on exactly the same issue in exactly the same thread. Unfortunately, he didn't feel like debating the issue for 7 pages.

What fucking bullshit. Everyone here posts what they want to post and addressing issues they, themselves, want to bring to light. No one here calls anything they post is the entire history of summary of anything...if that what you want to look at it as, that's on you, not us. Why would Kabong have to disown what he posted unless you can show what he posted is false? You've contratdicted yourself and will now weasel the best you can to not have to own up to it. I don't know why he bothers...

my2hands · May 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

By "function" I'm assuming you mean something like "end poverty"??? Without taxation, that function will not happen. But, it doesn't happen with taxation either, so I'm not sure where that leaves us.

If this doesn't address your question, let me know what you mean by "function".

you know what i mean. it is not complicated. this is a reason people get pissed wiht you on here, you talk in circles and make EVERYTHING more complicated that it needs to be.

here it is as plain as it getsyou say taxes should be eliminated. ok, how will we have schools, police, jails, etc, etc, etc

farfromglorified · May 2007

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

What fucking bullshit. Everyone here posts what they want to post and addressing issues they, themselves, want to bring to light. No one here calls anything they post is the entire history of summary of anything...if that what you want to look at it as, that's on you, not us. Why would Kabong have to disown what he posted unless you can show what he posted is false?

Abook, I'm not questioning anyone's right to "post what they want post" or address whatever issues concern them. And I've never, ever suggested that anyone needs to post an "entire history", unless they're claiming to have done so.

All I've said is that the information has to match the claims and be non-contradictory or else I'm going to post what I want to post -- a challenge to the person who is making those claims.

You've contratdicted yourself and will now weasel the best you can to not have to own up to it. I don't know why he bothers...

I did not contradict myself in that thread. When angelica first brought this up, I certainly was willing to entertain that a contradiction existed. I think what she's staying still has some truth to it, and I'll certainly own up to the fact that I have challenged some posters here to prevent fuller pictures than the ones they paint. I'm not trying to "weasel" out of anything here.

Abookamongstthemany · May 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

Abook, I'm not questioning anyone's right to "post what they want post" or address whatever issues concern them. And I've never, ever suggested that anyone needs to post an "entire history", unless they're claiming to have done so.

All I've said is that the information has to match the claims and be non-contradictory or else I'm going to post what I want to post -- a challenge to the person who is making those claims.

I did not contradict myself in that thread. When angelica first brought this up, I certainly was willing to entertain that a contradiction existed. I think what she's staying still has some truth to it, and I'll certainly own up to the fact that I have challenged some posters here to prevent fuller pictures than the ones they paint. I'm not trying to "weasel" out of anything here.

"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."

Kabong never claimed this, he didn't say it sideways, he didn't say it indirectly but you still acted like he had an obligation to fulfill.

farfromglorified · May 2007

my2hands wrote:

you know what i mean. it is not complicated. this is a reason people get pissed wiht you on here, you talk in circles and make EVERYTHING more complicated that it needs to be.

Hehe...it's like a damn bandwagon here.

When you ask a question like:

"how do you propose our society will function without taxation"

You're asking a very generic question that presupposes a whole lot of things that you don't name. Asking for clarification is not "talking in circles" or "making things complicated".

here it is as plain as it getsyou say taxes should be eliminated. ok, how will we have schools, police, jails, etc, etc, etc

Ok. This helps.

Schools, police, and jails all existed before taxation did. I have no idea if there are private jails in america, but there are certainly private police forces and schools. So those things don't require taxation to exist.

Absent taxation, schools would obviously have to be supported by willful exchange. This would mean that, since the state cannot just take people's money, they (or any private group) would have to earn it by selling schools to parents and/or students and/or charitable individuals.

Police and jails might function differently. The individual value of such things are so high that it could likely lead to a willful "tax", wherein parts of the community agree to pay a fee to cover a town or state to provide those services for the entire locality. Furthermore, individual contraction with local private police forces has been and could be utilized by society as well.

Authorities investigate Moore on Cuba

Comments

Categories