Date: Wed 19 Feb 2003 - 18:48:17 GMT
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > > History prooved us right, no doubt about it, but in the case of
> > > Nazism the enslavement of the German people prooved to be a
> > > freedom and choise- stance_ for the ( most of the) German people
> > > at that time ! Don 't get me wrong Joe, I ain 't keen on Stalin
> > > and Pol Pot either, but all positive characteristics of the term
> > > tolerance reflects our point of view not theirs, and I think that
> > > this deserves attention.
> > The points of view of the soulless butchers of millions deserve our
> > attention????? I fear that with this contention you have traveled
> > quantums beyond the pale, and I fail to see how you can find your
> > way back to rationality and reason.
> This seems to be somewhat a point of misunderstanding between the two
> of us, Joe ! In the context of the term, in the semantic of the term
> itself, tolerance is a passive conception. It demands a meek, passive
> attitude under which we go the facts. Tolerance is here the opposite
> of a ' will to change '. The facts we endure, but we do nothing wha
> could change the status quo.
> In the context of Stalin and Pol Pot we ' tolerate ' their ways by
> which they lead their country. We are, as individuals and I soley
> concentrate on those, to little to do anything about the situation_ we
> can only pressure our own government. If our voices aren t heard.....
> That is OUR pasitive attitude towards another country its home
> affairs_ like many now argue in the context of Irak.
> What we don 't tolerate on the other hand is indeed the ways those
> guys behave(d). Tolerance can thus in certain circumstances be
> abolished. But whatever the reason ( did we tolerate Stalins and Pol
> Pot's behavior in those times !?) we didn 't do nothing in the given
> time to get rid of those killers, did we !? No we made ' peace ' with
> the first ( self- interest no doubt) and the second was finally
> defeated after a long, long war ( but was he killed, no lived on...)
> Were we involved in that battle !?
No, but I applaud the Vietnamese, who were in a position to do so, for ending that reign of terror.
> The attention I talk about is that we ought to look at whatever
> the reason was for those butchers their behavior to comprehend
> what happened and to avoid repetition.
> Whatever their reason was_ a rational ( in their mind) was present (
> whatever that could be), if we think that we have something to say,
> something to add, we're in the ' wrong ' ! Don 't get ME wrong, but
> IMO, we look at the problematic with our own eyes, the eyes of the
> beholder and we look in only one direction_ OURS ! This is a rhetoric
> movement we make by which we automatically condems the ' victim '. Don
> 't say we shouldn 't and should, though !
> Is this clearer !?
> I have it here soley about the used terminology, not what its holds
> Many regards though,
Yeah, but it has come down, in the final analysis, to a question of relative power. We have helped to rescue the victims of powerful despots where we were in a position to do so (Milosevic, Karadzic), and not done so when we were not in such a position (Stalin, Mao). We are presently in such a position with reference to Saddam Hussein; we are not with reference to Kim Jong Il, and if we wait until Saddam obtains nukes, we will not be in a position to help liberate the Iraqi people any more than we can presently do much for the starving and oppressed North Koreans.
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed 19 Feb 2003 - 18:45:09 GMT