Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:46:53 -0500 (EST) From: Jerry McAllister <jerrymc@clunix.cl.msu.edu> To: tedm@toybox.placo.com (Ted Mittelstaedt) Cc: "\"\"Marco Greene ML\"" <mweg@sympatico.ca> Subject: Re: Stupid ASCII loader prompt Message-ID: <200503181446.j2IEkrm08499@clunix.cl.msu.edu> In-Reply-To: <LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNOEMLFAAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com> from "Ted Mittelstaedt" at Mar 17, 2005 11:25:01 PM
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Re all that stuff about Iraq and oil, etc that I nuked, many times in world history, self serving campaigners have made suckers of the unwashed masses and been able to claim them in a majority. That is not the same as the minority seizing power because of the way our system is constructed. It is an (often) unfortunate artifact of the human condition. > they were far more common than anyone would believe. > > > Sure, each 'ultra' group contains the seeds/tools of its own > > destruction. > > No, not true. The Amish for example are definitely an off-the-bend > "ultra" > group, but they have a consistent internal philosophy, and the way they > apply their philosophy is non hypocritical, thus they survive. The > Quakers, > the super-Mormons, even the survivalists, there are many of these > out-in-left-field > groups that are non-hypocritical in the application end. As a result > they > don't carry the seeds of their own destruction. Rather, there are other > reasons that they can never grow beyond a small minority. There are other seeds of self destruction beside hypocrisy. The Amish and some similar groups just gradually die off, for example. By the way, there is plenty of hypocrisy in the Amish community. It may look different from what we are all used to seeing but it is there. Survivalists/militia groups feed on people's personal pathology and must constantly be resupplied by fresh self-loathing recruits. They are somewhat a product of the failure of mainstream society and maybe some of that hypocrisy you seem interested in. > > There's plenty of stuff that you can fault the ultraliberals for, > (stupidity, > no common sense) but hypocrisy is not one of them. That particular > problem is a speciality of the ultraconservatives. Well, it seems so, but even the ultra liberals abuse weaker persons within their groups. That, for example, has been one of the complaints of women for the last hundred years or more (my memory doesn't go back much farther than that). And they usually show none of their liberal consideration toward their opponents, even though their doctrine would call for it. > > So, lets leave this topic at that. Either the > > ultra-anti-beastie or ultra-pro-beastie movements will destroy > > themselves. > > The ultra-pro-beastie movement is defined as the status quo, so it's > impossible for it to destroy itself (except perhaps by apathy) The status quo is that not many people care. The ultra-pro-beastie movement can destroy itself just like the other side by being so strident that they offend the status quo and majority and incite a dump-it movement just to show they won't be abused by either religious fringe - since the ultra-pro-beastie group seems to be the loudest and most narrowly beamed one at the moment. ////jerry > > Ted >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200503181446.j2IEkrm08499>