actionforum(a)comcast.net wrote:
-------------- Original message --------------
actionforum(a)comcast.net wrote:
-------------- Original message --------------
>Who cares what consensus is? What matters is
what is right. Edit
>waring has it's uses. For some reason it seems to be an effective way
>of increaseing the number of citations.
>
>
The problem with believing that being right is paramount is that it
tends to shut out other views which may be just as right.
No, that is the problem with being wrong. It is those who are
wrong that want to shut out the views that may be right.
That is how you get gulags, political prisoners, censorship,
whole nations that are gulags of cheap captive labor where
emigation and escape are prohibitted.
Thank you for proving my point. I was talking about Wikipedia articles,
and you want to talk about Guantanamo.
Really? Integrity and character, fairness, tolerance
and equality under the rules matter on little things
such as wikipedia articles too. When a clique, gets
ahold of a page, the wikipedia rules no longer apply,
they make the rules. Sometimes you can shame them
a bit with their hypocrisy, sometimes they are shameless.
But being a clique or a "consensus" doesn't make them
right.
Leave it to the anti-Castro clique to declare that principles should
only be applied when to do so would be of minimal consequence.
Guantanamo is an embarrassment, but wars are messy,
I'm probably a pacifist myself (I'm not quite sure), but
what seems plain is that the non-pacifists who oppose
the war in Iraq and who somehow have supported some
other war and how that war was fought, are probably
among the worlds greatest hypocrits. The U.S. has
liberated Iraq without using conscript/slaves, with careful
targeting to avoid unnecessary damage to civilians and
civilian infrastructure, with no territorial ambitions, and
without using "allies" that are beneath contempt such
as Stalin, certain warlords in Afghanistan or the U.N.
So you would have us believe that the warlords with whom the U. S. has
allied itself in Afghanistan are more virtuous than the ones it
opposes! That may be the case on your planet, but not on earth.
Some of us do believe in respecting the views of others, and I do know
that there are others here who might share some of your POV. The point
is that this started off with your, "What matters is what is right." As
much as I may disagree with that position, I can recognize it as being
relevant to writing an encyclopedia. But what do Fidel Castro and the
Iraq War have to do with it? Do these topics represent your extension
of Goodwin's Law? If you have nothing better to do than attempt to
inflame passions maybe you should just go away.
Ec