Comment Re:perhaps he has the best reward there is (Score 1) 182
You instigate a conflict and then label those who respond by tearing down your arguments as defensive. One should expect a defense proportional to one's offense, a lesson you should perhaps contemplate before you attempt to escalate your pretensions against others.
>I'll summarize for you again, and maybe you'll read what I'm putting in the text as opposed >to things that I didn't explicitly write: it doesn't matter what you think of your country >when dealing with stereotypes. It doesn't matter what the truth of the situation is.
You're disingenuously backpedalling as I've watched you do numerous times with other posters who've called you on your anti-Americanism. You've argued for more than an image problem-- You've argued that anti-Americanism, in the crude and hypocritical forms in which you have expressed it is completely justifiable. There's no benefit to concealing your malice once you've announced it to the world.
You've defended those who single out America for their scorn in this forum and such people rarely apportion blame equally amongst China, Russia, and the United States. Your favoritism is there, inferrable from context-- Despite yet another attempt to backpedal. Not all communication is explicit. More than 50% of what you say, in fact, is reflected in how you say something or what you choose not to say, as opposed to what you explicitly state as a matter of record, and most implicit communication inferences people draw are well defined within a particular language group. I saw what you were saying, and I called you on it because it is illogical and hypocritical, for no other reason.
Regarding the softwood lumber issue I'm inclined to think the US government is too agressive in trying to selectively enforce international agreements to its benefit but you took aim at the population as a whole and provoked my response in that way. I'd never object to your point about softwood in proper context, although it is an odd one from the mouth of an environmentalist hippie. I suppose I also find the sudden concern for athleticism and health of Americans to be a bit unusual if you're not prepared to condemn the equally unhealthy pot smoking and acid dropping that exemplefies hippiedom. (Not that I didn't dabble a bit myself in the early years:)
My biggest concern with anti-Americanism is not legitimate criticism of American government, culture, or society, but hypocritical criticism emanating from three sources:
1) Envy of America's preeminence
2) Resentment of American capitalism (the debate with socialists is fine but they shouldn't invent pretexts to criticize America that they're unwilling to apply to countries that practice their ideals)
3) America's defense of Israel. The world is unreasonable on what it expects Israel to tolerate from its Islamist enemies. China and Russia in particular would resort to genocide on a neighbor sooner than be subjected to the barrage of missiles that came from Lebanon into Israel recently, yet they pounded the table and demanded that Israel cease military operations. This dark double standard looms like a spectre over international relations, and I believe the US has erred in compromising too much with it, if anything.
When you start nitpicking something like our energy consumption while admitting your own per capita is worse, and saying nothing about the clear-cutting of rain forests in Brazil because it's not expedient to pick on them right now, I see you as part of a trend of anti-Americanism that goes beyond the rational problems we should be seeking to solve in a spirit of cooperation. And that hypocrisy, representative of a kind of irrational ill-will, that invariable points to 1 through 3.
I'm willing to solve the real problems that America has, but 1 through 3 are not our problems. They are the shortcomings of our enemies.
>I'll summarize for you again, and maybe you'll read what I'm putting in the text as opposed >to things that I didn't explicitly write: it doesn't matter what you think of your country >when dealing with stereotypes. It doesn't matter what the truth of the situation is.
You're disingenuously backpedalling as I've watched you do numerous times with other posters who've called you on your anti-Americanism. You've argued for more than an image problem-- You've argued that anti-Americanism, in the crude and hypocritical forms in which you have expressed it is completely justifiable. There's no benefit to concealing your malice once you've announced it to the world.
You've defended those who single out America for their scorn in this forum and such people rarely apportion blame equally amongst China, Russia, and the United States. Your favoritism is there, inferrable from context-- Despite yet another attempt to backpedal. Not all communication is explicit. More than 50% of what you say, in fact, is reflected in how you say something or what you choose not to say, as opposed to what you explicitly state as a matter of record, and most implicit communication inferences people draw are well defined within a particular language group. I saw what you were saying, and I called you on it because it is illogical and hypocritical, for no other reason.
Regarding the softwood lumber issue I'm inclined to think the US government is too agressive in trying to selectively enforce international agreements to its benefit but you took aim at the population as a whole and provoked my response in that way. I'd never object to your point about softwood in proper context, although it is an odd one from the mouth of an environmentalist hippie. I suppose I also find the sudden concern for athleticism and health of Americans to be a bit unusual if you're not prepared to condemn the equally unhealthy pot smoking and acid dropping that exemplefies hippiedom. (Not that I didn't dabble a bit myself in the early years:)
My biggest concern with anti-Americanism is not legitimate criticism of American government, culture, or society, but hypocritical criticism emanating from three sources:
1) Envy of America's preeminence
2) Resentment of American capitalism (the debate with socialists is fine but they shouldn't invent pretexts to criticize America that they're unwilling to apply to countries that practice their ideals)
3) America's defense of Israel. The world is unreasonable on what it expects Israel to tolerate from its Islamist enemies. China and Russia in particular would resort to genocide on a neighbor sooner than be subjected to the barrage of missiles that came from Lebanon into Israel recently, yet they pounded the table and demanded that Israel cease military operations. This dark double standard looms like a spectre over international relations, and I believe the US has erred in compromising too much with it, if anything.
When you start nitpicking something like our energy consumption while admitting your own per capita is worse, and saying nothing about the clear-cutting of rain forests in Brazil because it's not expedient to pick on them right now, I see you as part of a trend of anti-Americanism that goes beyond the rational problems we should be seeking to solve in a spirit of cooperation. And that hypocrisy, representative of a kind of irrational ill-will, that invariable points to 1 through 3.
I'm willing to solve the real problems that America has, but 1 through 3 are not our problems. They are the shortcomings of our enemies.
