-------------- Original message --------------
actionforum@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