-------------- Original message --------------
> actionforum(a)comcast.net wrote:
>
> >-------------- Original message --------------
> >
> >
> >>>Who cares what consensus is? What matters is what is right. Edit
> >>>waring has it's uses. For some reason it seems to be an effective way
> >>>of increaseing the number of citations.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>The problem with believing that being right is paramount is that it
> >>tends to shut out other views which may be just as right.
> >>
> >>
> >No, that is the problem with being wrong. It is those who are
> >wrong that want to shut out the views that may be right.
> >That is how you get gulags, political prisoners, censorship,
> >whole nations that are gulags of cheap captive labor where
> >emigation and escape are prohibitted.
> >
> Thank you for proving my point. I was talking about Wikipedia articles,
> and you want to talk about Guantanamo.
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.
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.
-- Silverback