> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of elena
> Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2000 8:55 AM
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: Re: "Heterosexual Marriage"!
>
>
> ----- Original Mess -----
> From: Christopher Susi <chris at susi.net
> > we need oxygen, we save them from starvation.
> >.......
> > My argument can be made on both a macro-level ... all the way down to a
> micro-level ... When there is no inherent
> > benefit, why should they be saved? ... I could
> > even make a case (probably a pretty strong one) that if they
> live and grow
> > strong that they may become a significant threat.
> >
> Snipped cos what's left seemed, to me at least, precisely the point
> that tickled me to reply. It's not just that I don't like bullies (that's
> personal, hence ignorable and surely not worth webcasting on
> lbo). Rather, I
> get b/itchy about a global bully (like the US currently) flexing
> muscles on
> each and every occasion (but, I guess, that's my own problem). Maybe,
> because I happen to live in interesting times in an interesting country ,
> which, for the last 1000 years, seems to have been strategically
> prostituting as *'s colony (colony in a Saidian sense for kelley, yoshie
> etc) by necessity. That's not the point, though.
Ok, but what you're doing is taking the question and superimposing facts that didn't exist. For instance, I never mentioned the U.S. (though you are correct it is where I live). Where was the USSR during the 80's to supply resources to countries that were undergoing critical times of mass starvation? ResourcefullCountry could be any industrialized country and DyingCountry could be any third-world. It can also reverse quite quickly. Where are the growing asian countries (e.g. Malaysia) to help the people in the former Soviet splinter countries?
I will accept the perception that the U.S. acts as a bully sometimes. However I believe you are adding more to the original question. I traditionally never thought of inaction being characteritistic of a bully, but rather the apathetic. "Bully", to me, is someone who uses force or position to get a weaker party to do something they wouldn't normally do and shouldn't have to do*. A party that stands idly by aware of the suffering of others when they could help would be called "Apathetic" at best and "Cold-hearted bastard" at worst.
* I add the qualifier "Shouldn't have to do" because a manager gets people to do things they wouldn't normally do all the time, and then they are called "motivator".
> I'd invert/edit your
> question, and wait for your answer:
> > When there is no inherent
> > benefit, (why) should they be saved?
> as
> * Why not just let them be starved, if there is no inherent benefit?
> >From a bully's point of view, this should make perfect sense: is
> that what
> you are advocating?
Yes, these questions are nearly interchangeable. It's not what I'm advocating, it's what I'm questioning. I'm fully aware of it being a loaded one as well. Howerver, those are the best ones.
>
> Elena
> P.S.
> >
> > (It is bad manners, however, to use this device to show that another
> writer
> > is a lousy speller or otherwise unlettered.)
> >
> Yep, I was intentionally trying to be as offenisve (sic!) as
> possible. Sorry
> ab that - honest. A bad thing, too: the only excuse I can offer
> is: imagine
> having to work on a Sunday without the required bowl of
> Java-coffee to boot
> you...
> But! I usually get away with that (i.e. your sic!s, cos I'm a
> furriner......:o)
> P.P.S. a case of cross-cultural skidding:
Now now now, no reason to take out personal issues (lack of coffee) on the innocent. Do you know how many people at work I've alienated because of that? ("This server is down Chris." "SO GOD-DAMN WHAT!")
> > Also, I have never read "the Tempest" (sic!). You know you should never
> > assume, because you know where that gets you. However, if you recommend
> it,
> > I will put it on my reading list.
> >
> explanation: Shakespeare was part of both Bulgarian high-school/ Russian
> high-school curriculum in (respectively) late '70's - early '80's. Was it
> wrong to deduce that he was excluded from US high-school requirements?
> Though, The Tempest would be a brain-disturber, so, maybe, after
> all, it was
> de-mock-rat-ically censured...
I had to read R&J, & Julius Ceaser (I guess they wanted to teach us: Watch your back) for required Shakespeare. I also read a few others as part of plays and book reports, as I'm sure many of my peers did. Just not that one (The Tempest). However I am quite familiar with the "Forbidden Planet" version. :)
Conversely, we read things also that probably wern't on your list, such as "Shane" (dont ask me to defend it, I didn't like it), "Red Badge of Courage", "Scarlet Letter".