It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

OP/ED: With US or against US

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Kano,

Good post. Naturaly I disagree with some of it, agree with some of it. However, I would be remiss in pointing out that the "other" side is just a guilty. Any support of the U.S. is instantly labled as "mindless" or brain washed. Any positive story about the U.S. agenda is treated with the same distrust, scorn and general distain that you so elequently put forth. BT's cartoon is a case in point. BOTH sides are equally adamant and both sides are just as quick to point the finger.




As I said above anyone who supports the war gets the same treatment as well.

[edit on 11/19/04 by FredT]

The thing to understand is that there is rhetoric on both sides of any issue, and the rhetoric becomes increasingly stiff in response to the issue's emotional impact, for example in areas of abortion, war, and violent crimes.

When an issue is emotional, the ability to think and reason is diminished and people become more divided.

The effects of emotional issues is exploited by politicians to progress their agendas. Ex: 9/11 - 'Always Remember' but very little understanding. The emotional significance of the event makes understanding it difficult, and the event itself has been employed as a massive political tool.




posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Don’t think that just because some people are against the war, they are against the US. They may be against US policy, but they aren’t against the US.

You know, it’s easy to think in binary terms. On and off, right or wrong, with us or against us. It rings of simplicity and easy understanding. We are attracted to simple choices like those because, as you know, most of the choices we make are not simple. So when we are presented with easy choices we jump on the 'binary' bandwagon and support them even if it means sometimes turning our heads away from the gray areas often closing in around us all too completely.

Yes, the press does manipulate what happens so that the gray areas are minimized. US government doesn’t want to show bad things happening in Iraq, naturally. That is where you outside of the US must come in. The US needs you to keep it honest. If the rest of the world does the same manipulation of press coverage the US does, all the gray areas will be lost and it WILL be simply a “with us or against us” situation.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Kano,

Probably a coincidence, but I couldn’t help but notice that the 1st 4 out of 5 posts to this thread were made by women. Hmmmm … Make of it what you will.

Anyway, you have some good points, Kano. There is a definite “Us Against Them” mentality pervading the board. I think it goes far beyond the board, though. The divisiveness is becoming more and more pronounced not only in the U.S., but worldwide. The gap seems to be widening rapidly, and it’s both unsettling and alarming.

When an American President stands up and announces to the world, “You’re either with us, or you’re with the terrorists.”, people sit up and listen and take it quite seriously. Those are fighting words, and fighting words cause people to take sides and prepare for battle. It’s like the Leader of the Free World has handed down a mandate, and you have only 2 options to choose from. Unfortunately, our leader is a B/W thinker, himself.

Besides the above, the nation, and the world, is troubled not only over Iraq, OBL and terrorism (SEPARATE issues), but also the global economy, North Korea, Iran, growing poverty, lack of thoughtful leadership, etc. These are difficult times overall, and people are a bit on edge. Change is in the air, and change is a scarey thing to many. Consequently, tempers flare.

As for myself, anyone who’s read any of my posts knows how vehemently opposed I am to current U.S. policy and the present administration. I think the current administration is a failure and lacks any positive vision. It’s an administration based on fear and incapable of diplomacy. I don’t care what anyone else thinks, that’s my opinion. I think the only way to deal with terrorism is to

1) Understand why these groups are so angry with us,
2) OBJECTIVELY, with an openness to differences, assess both sides of the issues and
3) Through DIPLOMACY, whenever possible, resolve the issues.

The “Shoot first; ask questions later.” approach is not the strategy a civilized nation would adopt. It’s foolhardy and will lead to unprecedented death and destruction. It’s hard for me to imagine that anyone, being both intelligent and of right mind, would choose to go the route of brute force over reason and diplomacy in order to settle differences.

It’s when diplomacy fails that chaos reigns. IMHO, and concern, the U.S. has a current administration incapable of diplomacy. This administration has trouble stringing 2 sentences together, let alone seriously negotiating world peace.

Personally, I don’t want to walk on eggshells when letting my opinion be known on the board. At the same time, I don’t want my throat slashed. So, parameters must be established. Perhaps, members should be allowed to say their piece, but be discouraged from making it personal or pushing their offensive racial agendas (labeling all Islamics as terrorists, turning the entire Middle East to glass, etc.). I think censorship of ideas would defeat the purpose of it all, but personal attacks on other members should be a “Warn”able offense. In any case, members should feel comfortable about expressing their views and not have to consider every word they type.

I’ll wrap it up here. Kano, I think you make some valid points, and I know it’s difficult sometimes knowing where to draw the line. I trust that if such a line is drawn, it will be the result of much thoughtful consideration. I like this board, and I love my country (believe it or not). I’m just a little concerned over the latter at the moment …



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 09:58 PM
link   
Wow

Lots of cool responses, lots of reasonable thought out post

this is off and on topic

Some where along the way I read an article on critical thinking and it was subtitle the difficulties of argueing with non critical thinker.

One of the difficulties of argueing with non critical thinkers is that often they do not know the correct definitions of words and phrases. Leading to all sorts of issues.

Another difficulty is they compare apples to oranges "some things are black and white" and provide an example you have to agree with and connect it to their statement.

There were more but all of did not make from short to long term memory.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 10:13 PM
link   
One more addition if I may, what if we discussed political ideologies without using the words "Republican, Democrat, Left, Right, Conservative, Liberal."

It is fairly obvious to me that most of the policies of these political groups are also not black&white. We see a diverse array of differing political opinion within each of these groups. If we can encourage people to think for themselves instead of always referring to political groups in general, I think that much more fruitful discussion will occur.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 10:40 PM
link   
Interesting perspectives. I disagree with the logical thinking school. Reality is all that really matters. Logic has, well, logical flaws. This is one of the major reasons beliefs get banged in one corner or the other.

On Iraq- realistically there is a war. It is a brutal war with scarce attention to any convention on any side. There are more than two sides involved there.

I'll leave the religious stuff alone on this thread as it would detract from the subject.

Mono-thought and belief are the result of logical thinking. This is taught as good and correct because it supposedly makes sense. When two logical arguments end up with opposing views where does that leave logic?

Look at the facts, forget the logic. Conclusions are nothing more than supposition.


The US is running most of the news reported on the Iraq war. Much of that news makes the US out as having a hard time. Most (far more than much) of the news makes the US enemies out as being barbaric, weak and callous. Logic thinkers draw your conclusions-

Realistically the US is portraying the state of events in the way it wants to. I have seen no vote or poll asking people what type of reporting appeals to them the most for the 6 o'clock news and then what different type reporting should be shown on the 10 o'clock news.

Logically many things do not equate. Realistically all that occurs is.

What will happen tomorrow in Iraq? Realistically more of the same.

Another thing that strikes me as further proof of the fallacies inherent in logical decision making is the terrain of Iraq. Logic would dictate that opposition would be easy to contain- vast stretches of virtually vacant terrain, a minimal number of travel routes, complete dominance of the air, etc.

Reality intrudes and shows everyone that logic failed yet one more time.

You see the logic in this, right



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Well I cant say that I agree with you 100%, because I need to make a point. Just because someone is against the war, that is fine. But doing things that make the war arder on those fighting it, only helps the enemy and that is a plain fact. So in that reguard, I disagree , but I can respect you for your posting your thoughts, as you are fully entitled to them.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 10:52 PM
link   
You know what they say about a "House Divided".

If we love this country, we will not let our differences seperate us, we will let them bring something different to the table for all of us to grow and learn from. It makes us stronger.


God Bless the American Spirit of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.......for all!!!




posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
But doing things that make the war arder on those fighting it, only helps the enemy and that is a plain fact.


Even that isn't black and white ed and people tend to use that to their advantage to stifle criticism. A fact is a belief of the mind, so a fact to you, isn't to someone else. That's what's called an opinion.



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 12:34 AM
link   
If we look back at the earlier dichotomies I explored—in writing, teaching, thinking—we can see the same dynamic: when people claim that there is no real dichotomy or no real conflict, their arguments serve (whether consciously or not) to cover up and reinforce an ingrained power imbalance. For example, when people argue that there is no conflict between generating and criticizing in writing, or between believing and doubting in thinking and learning, they are reinforcing the present dominance of criticism and critical thinking in the academic or intellectual realm. They are reinforcing the prevailing assumption that it is a good thing to clear space for nonstop, unrelieved criticism or doubting while people write or think, but that it is a bad thing to clear space for nonstop, unrelieved generating or believing or making a mess. Periods of extreme control and planning are currently felt to be fine, but not periods of nonplanning or relinquishing control.Extremity in doubting is fine, but extremity in believing is bad. This attitude toward belief is so ingrained in our academic and intellectual culture that people don't realize that what they are afraid of—namely, fanaticism or closed-mindedness—represents not extremity of belief but poverty of belief: the ability to believe only one thing. Extremity in doubting is fine, but extremity in believing is bad. This attitude toward belief is so ingrained in our academic and intellectual culture that people don't realize that what they are afraid of—namely, fanaticism or closed-mindedness—represents not extremity of belief but poverty of belief:

jac.gsu.edu/jac/13.1/Articles/4.htm


What we have is a polarized nation, a polarized world. It is reflected here at ATS. It is encouraged by our President and his administration. For those in power it is desireable perhaps created. You can not have growth without opposites as in ying and yang, however there needs be at least a third dimension, preferably multiple ones.
However with a "Your either with us or against us" attitude there is no room.
It removes all options. So the end result is not a denial of ignorance, but an embracing of ignorance on both sides. And it does not matter wether it is a board community or a planetary one. The result is the same. Chaos, into the abyss we go. Who benefits


Polar Bear


[edit on 20-11-2004 by Polar Bear]



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 01:00 AM
link   
1. Believing that one nation is the source of all evil.

2. Believing that one man is the source of all evil.

3. Believing that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot.

4. Believing that good people can't disagree.

There are examples of every one of these things in this thread.

Deny Ignorance.



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
A fact is a belief of the mind, so a fact to you, isn't to someone else. That's what's called an opinion.


What?!? A fact is a belief of the mind?!? Are you kidding me? Facts are Facts hence real.
Not made up, not what you think.
Your dangerous with thinking like that.



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Something believed to be true or real.


dictionary.reference.com...

Heh.



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 01:18 AM
link   
Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.

Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
Law. The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.







Next time post the whole damn definition. Pay particular attention to the FIRST sentence.



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 01:19 AM
link   
Dude, there are multiple definitions of "fact." I printed the one pertaining to what I was talking about. I was even nice enough to give you the link. You should be thanking me.


[edit on 20-11-2004 by Jamuhn]



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 05:02 AM
link   
Thank you fellas, you have been two perfect examples of my last post. I could not have provided a better example if I were a playwright.



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Polar Bear
Thank you fellas, you have been two perfect examples of my last post. I could not have provided a better example if I were a playwright.


You have no idea what you are talking about. All I was trying to do was clear up where the "fact is a belief of the mind" statement came from. If you want to play all high and mighty I suggest you take a second look at your past posts and even your statement above and learn to unwind your hypocrisy.

Just a friendly reminder telling you not to judge when you don't know what's going on.


[edit on 20-11-2004 by Jamuhn]



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 12:44 PM
link   
.
.
.
Great thread - thanks.

Reading here and elsewhere, I am reminded that discussion, negotiation and cooperation are skills that need to be learned.

...and these skills are NOT learned (or appreciated) when dominant role models and culture dismiss them, to promote *attack* as the appropriate response to disagreement.

Of course, the concept of attack is fundamental to our academic and judicial institutions. Which means that any real commitments to reasonable discussion, rational negotiation and (God forbid) cooperation are in fact, revolutionary...



.sp

[edit on 28-11-2004 by soficrow]



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 12:48 PM
link   
There are those that will always take one clear side of any given issue.

There are those that are neutral or in the middle of an issue, which are actually undecided or ignorant.

There are some of us who will actually take time to inform ourselves as to all aspects in any given issue before taking a stance.

But most just jump on with the majority to either look cool, make friends or just to follow the group.. even if it leads them to their own destruction.

THINK.. a brain is only a waste as long as you are without an open mind.



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Kano,

Good post. Naturaly I disagree with some of it, agree with some of it. However, I would be remiss in pointing out that the "other" side is just a guilty. Any support of the U.S. is instantly labled as "mindless" or brain washed. Any positive story about the U.S. agenda is treated with the same distrust, scorn and general distain that you so elequently put forth. BT's cartoon is a case in point. BOTH sides are equally adamant and both sides are just as quick to point the finger.

As I said above anyone who supports the war gets the same treatment as well.

[edit on 11/19/04 by FredT]


I second what FredT said, and like him I partly agree with some of what Kano is saying. But when some members show any support for our troops or the war these people are branded "assassins, warmongers" for their support....

Differing opinions are always alright, but....you knew this was going to come didn't you?...
You yourself already fell pray to your own argument Kano, by branding the other side "as ignorant." You drew a line and made two different sides in your own argument. The "ignorant", as opposed to the.. what, "enlightened"?

Anyways, I don't want this to turn into another heated discussion, but it goes both ways... and sometimes one side is more at fault than another of this "branding" of people and different opinions/views.

---edited for errors---

[edit on 20-11-2004 by Muaddib]

[edit on 20-11-2004 by Muaddib]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join