------------- Original message --------------
> >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.
No, but applying them in small things is good practice. For instance,
the police and prosecution in the OJ Simpson case knew from
the beginning that the media glare would be on them because
of Simpson's involvement, yet they were so out of practice
that even knowing their every move was watched they couldn't
behave correctly.
Similarly police officers that lie in a traffic case will have no qualms
about doing so in a murder case also.
> >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.
I was referring to the warlords that were US allies, it was as immoral
for the US to associate with them as it was to aid Stalin in WWII,
and as it was to conscript innocent US civilians in WWII and the
Vietnam war.
> 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.
No more than your mention of Guantanamo was. Goodwin's Law hasn't
been proven yet any way. Sorry I inflame your passions, I meant to
stimulate you to question your assumptions, since you seemed so
sure that your moral relativism would be accepted without question.
-- Silverback