On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 08:17:42 GMT, "Hoges in WA"
wrote:

I think everyone discriminates, even lefties who say they don't - I just
admit I do.

Of course. It is deeply imbedded in our genes as a survival
mechanism. To deny that, is to deny the origins and history of
mankind. The challenge is to transcend gut level instinct and not
discriminate when it is inappropriate.

A more subtle issue is whether or not cultural discrimination is
appropriate as opposed to racial discrimination. It is very difficult
to advance your own cultural beliefs, particularly with your children,
without downplaying others.

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...
"Hoges in WA" wrote in message
...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...
"Hoges in WA" wrote in message
...
Hm, no wonder you're sympathetic. Lets try again with another group.
Say a North Korean ship accidentally killed some friends of yours.
Would you then think all Asians are inferior and deserve to be killed?
If they did it on purpose would you *then* think all Asians are
inferior and deserve to be killed?

Stephen

No, you're missing the distinction between racism and bigotry.
I am selective in my prejudices, not racially biased.

I think that's a reasonable argument, but I have a question (or perhaps
a comment). Don't you think we need to struggle against our prejudices?
I think that allows us to make the claim we're fully human.

That would be an ideal. On an intellectual level, I get an Arab magazine
bi-monthly and have received it since 1977.

I think the struggle is the important part. No one can be 100% successful
(unless you're a saint).

We all have deep-seated prejudices, but we can and should strive to
overcome them.


I have learned a lot about Arab culture, history, literature and
achievement (Ibn Battuta was a bit of a cruiser!).

I can distinguish between an educated Arab and a Palestinian thug from a
criminal family. However, until I know where they come from, I treat
them with suspicion and relax once I know.

If I'm wandering along a street in my home town and a group of Australian
Aborigines is coming towards me, male or female, my defences are up at
once. If at all possible, I'll cross the street - I can't afford time off
work to attend court cases.

That's pre-judging or, prejudicial. It's discriminatory, based on
hard-won experience. It's also something I will not stop doing and
something I won't stop complaining about until they begin to behave.

It's also called self-preservation, and I don't see something wrong with
it. The circumstance has a lot to do with it. If you were attending some
professional conference that had a lot of Aborigines in attendance, would
you feel the same way while listening to a lecture? Crime is crime, and
it's reasonable to take precautions, but I would have the same reaction if
I were about to encounter a bunch of skin heads.


If, on the other hand, I was to encounter a group of aborigines in
Cairns, on the other side of the coutnry, I would be more likely to be
interested rather than suspicious, as most of them have a job and a
future to protect.

Right... I didn't read this until after I typed previously. :-)

I think everyone discriminates, even lefties who say they don't - I just
admit I do.

I think anyone who is being intellectually honest would say they either do
or struggle mightily not to.

My attitude is roundly criticised by many of our acquaintances (my wife's
really) but mention "American" to an Oz lefty and you get rolled eyes,
sneers etc.

They don't see their discrimination as being as bad as mine because they
think they're entitled to "that" prejudice and I'm not entitled to mine.

Just makes my sniping worse.

Yes. Entitlement... that's a harbinger of unfettered prejudice.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com


That last line of yours is probably the universal underlying factor and to
either remove it or minimise it, someone has to move first.
(and like everyone else, I always say - Well, I'm not going to, you do it.)

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
news
"Hoges in WA" wrote in message
...

snipped

OT: Are you still getting out this way?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com


No entirely sure. Retirement plans very much on track, though.

Turned 58 the other day and on countdown. I have a replacement for me at
work and he's shaping up well. I'll be happy to leave my long-term clients
in his hands when I go.

My wife is still on the Chemo thing for a while (got one today) but she's
very much onside with going as soon as we can. I'm hoping to spend some
time this year on some different boats to widen my ideas a bit.

Guesstimating being in the USA in about Feb '11. Had Florida pretty much
pegged as the place to buy but Roger has suggested a serious look at
freshwater.

If we're coming all that way, I'd like to call in and see you. Wouldn't
mind a look at Candlestick before it goes, too.

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 08:17:42 GMT, "Hoges in WA"
wrote:

I think everyone discriminates, even lefties who say they don't - I just
admit I do.

Of course. It is deeply imbedded in our genes as a survival
mechanism. To deny that, is to deny the origins and history of
mankind. The challenge is to transcend gut level instinct and not
discriminate when it is inappropriate.

A more subtle issue is whether or not cultural discrimination is
appropriate as opposed to racial discrimination. It is very difficult
to advance your own cultural beliefs, particularly with your children,
without downplaying others.

That's true - you do it in many ways.

"Hoges in WA" wrote in message
...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
news
"Hoges in WA" wrote in message
...

snipped

OT: Are you still getting out this way?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com


No entirely sure. Retirement plans very much on track, though.

Turned 58 the other day and on countdown. I have a replacement for me at
work and he's shaping up well. I'll be happy to leave my long-term
clients in his hands when I go.

My wife is still on the Chemo thing for a while (got one today) but she's
very much onside with going as soon as we can. I'm hoping to spend some
time this year on some different boats to widen my ideas a bit.

Guesstimating being in the USA in about Feb '11. Had Florida pretty much
pegged as the place to buy but Roger has suggested a serious look at
freshwater.

If we're coming all that way, I'd like to call in and see you. Wouldn't
mind a look at Candlestick before it goes, too.



So, sorry to hear about your wife... didn't know. I hope she gets better
soon.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 11:43:12 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 21:30:06 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 10:47:37 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
om...
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 18:20:42 -0800, Stephen Trapani
wrote:

Larry wrote:
"Capt. JG" wrote in
easolutions:

Well, if that were all it was, I wouldn't have an argument, but the
context of his comment (all his previous and continuing diatribes
about Zionism, etc.) makes that a weak argument. The words
themselves
mean little, but the context of them (especially of the particular
speaker - any speaker) are highly important to that understanding.



Without Zionism, America wouldn't be in the ****ty position it is in
today, fighting Israel's wars for them.

Sure they would. America is in the position of having to defend
numerous
democracies against numerous different tyrannies. Israel is only one
of
many. One of the best, but one of many.

Iraqis and Afghans aren't near the threat to America that the now-
nuclear-weapon-carrying-submarined Zionist state is. Every one of
you
Americans are now in range of Israeli nuclear weapons, thanks to the
Germans who sold them 5 submarines for their delivery, any place on
the
planet.

Woops. Slipping into kook mode again. Real democracies have never
fought
significant wars against each other and probably never will.

Stephen

Weren't both the United States (USA) and the Confederated States of
America (CSA) democracies? and didn't they fight a war? Wasn't it
significant?

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Do you really consider the CSA a legitimate democracy in the sense that
_all_ it's people were represented? Certainly, the blacks weren't.

I don't think Lincoln did.


The Republican's stated position on Slavery in 1860 was simply that it
wouldn't be allowed to expand into new territories. Lincoln did not
campaign on freeing the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation freed
slaves in states revolting against the U.S.A. The initial proclamation
only stated that slaves would be freed in "in any state of the
Confederate States of America that did not return to Union control by
January 1, 1863". The second proclamation, of 1863, freed them. Slaves
were not freed in states not in rebellion.



Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Do you believe Lincoln consider the Confederacy a legitimate democracy? Do
you think he though slavery was ok?


I suspect that Lincoln, as well as most of the thinking northern
population (as opposed to those who read Uncle Tom's Cabin and thought
it to the whole truth) probably considered slavery simply as an
unpalatable condition.

Lincoln was a rather controversial individual. His wife was from a
prominent, slave owning, Kentucky family, as a lawyer he defended both
slave owners as well as, at least in one case a Black. He was a member
of the Republican which opposed slave owning but held the viewpoint
that the Constitution prevented the banning of slavery in those states
where it already existed. He proposed that if slavery was abolished
that slave owners be compensated for the value of the freed slaves. He
was considered a moderate by other Republicans, Stephen Douglas
accused him of not being consistent and altered his message and
position on slavery and on the political rights of freed blacks in
order to appeal to the audience he was addressing. Regarding the
revolution he specifically that the fight was to preserve the Union
and NOT to free the slaves and that "If I could save the Union
without freeing any slave I would do it" - letter to the New York
Tribune 22 Aug 1862.

Did Lincoln perceived the CSA as a legitimate democracy? I doubt very
much that his thinking ever went that far. He certainly considered it
as a group in rebellion against the legitimate government and probably
never gave any thought to whether it was "democratic" or not.




Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Thus, he didn't think it was legitimate, and he was troubled by slavery. I
appreciate the history lesson, but I've read quite a bit about Lincoln (Team
of Rivals most recently).


True that he didn't think of it a legitimate government but rather as
a bunch of rebels but I doubt that he thought of it as a democratic or
non-democratic bunch of rebels, which was your point that I was
answering.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 11:43:12 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 21:30:06 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
m...
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 10:47:37 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
news:htqmo5pnl72k4agl8l02voq7ohgn975kni@4ax. com...
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 18:20:42 -0800, Stephen Trapani
wrote:

Larry wrote:
"Capt. JG" wrote in
easolutions:

Well, if that were all it was, I wouldn't have an argument, but
the
context of his comment (all his previous and continuing diatribes
about Zionism, etc.) makes that a weak argument. The words
themselves
mean little, but the context of them (especially of the
particular
speaker - any speaker) are highly important to that
understanding.



Without Zionism, America wouldn't be in the ****ty position it is
in
today, fighting Israel's wars for them.

Sure they would. America is in the position of having to defend
numerous
democracies against numerous different tyrannies. Israel is only one
of
many. One of the best, but one of many.

Iraqis and Afghans aren't near the threat to America that the now-
nuclear-weapon-carrying-submarined Zionist state is. Every one of
you
Americans are now in range of Israeli nuclear weapons, thanks to
the
Germans who sold them 5 submarines for their delivery, any place
on
the
planet.

Woops. Slipping into kook mode again. Real democracies have never
fought
significant wars against each other and probably never will.

Stephen

Weren't both the United States (USA) and the Confederated States of
America (CSA) democracies? and didn't they fight a war? Wasn't it
significant?

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Do you really consider the CSA a legitimate democracy in the sense
that
_all_ it's people were represented? Certainly, the blacks weren't.

I don't think Lincoln did.


The Republican's stated position on Slavery in 1860 was simply that it
wouldn't be allowed to expand into new territories. Lincoln did not
campaign on freeing the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation freed
slaves in states revolting against the U.S.A. The initial proclamation
only stated that slaves would be freed in "in any state of the
Confederate States of America that did not return to Union control by
January 1, 1863". The second proclamation, of 1863, freed them. Slaves
were not freed in states not in rebellion.



Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Do you believe Lincoln consider the Confederacy a legitimate democracy?
Do
you think he though slavery was ok?


I suspect that Lincoln, as well as most of the thinking northern
population (as opposed to those who read Uncle Tom's Cabin and thought
it to the whole truth) probably considered slavery simply as an
unpalatable condition.

Lincoln was a rather controversial individual. His wife was from a
prominent, slave owning, Kentucky family, as a lawyer he defended both
slave owners as well as, at least in one case a Black. He was a member
of the Republican which opposed slave owning but held the viewpoint
that the Constitution prevented the banning of slavery in those states
where it already existed. He proposed that if slavery was abolished
that slave owners be compensated for the value of the freed slaves. He
was considered a moderate by other Republicans, Stephen Douglas
accused him of not being consistent and altered his message and
position on slavery and on the political rights of freed blacks in
order to appeal to the audience he was addressing. Regarding the
revolution he specifically that the fight was to preserve the Union
and NOT to free the slaves and that "If I could save the Union
without freeing any slave I would do it" - letter to the New York
Tribune 22 Aug 1862.

Did Lincoln perceived the CSA as a legitimate democracy? I doubt very
much that his thinking ever went that far. He certainly considered it
as a group in rebellion against the legitimate government and probably
never gave any thought to whether it was "democratic" or not.




Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Thus, he didn't think it was legitimate, and he was troubled by slavery. I
appreciate the history lesson, but I've read quite a bit about Lincoln
(Team
of Rivals most recently).


True that he didn't think of it a legitimate government but rather as
a bunch of rebels but I doubt that he thought of it as a democratic or
non-democratic bunch of rebels, which was your point that I was
answering.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Heh... ok.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
.. .
"Hoges in WA" wrote in message
...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
news
"Hoges in WA" wrote in message
...

snipped

OT: Are you still getting out this way?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com


No entirely sure. Retirement plans very much on track, though.

Turned 58 the other day and on countdown. I have a replacement for me at
work and he's shaping up well. I'll be happy to leave my long-term
clients in his hands when I go.

My wife is still on the Chemo thing for a while (got one today) but she's
very much onside with going as soon as we can. I'm hoping to spend some
time this year on some different boats to widen my ideas a bit.

Guesstimating being in the USA in about Feb '11. Had Florida pretty much
pegged as the place to buy but Roger has suggested a serious look at
freshwater.

If we're coming all that way, I'd like to call in and see you. Wouldn't
mind a look at Candlestick before it goes, too.



So, sorry to hear about your wife... didn't know. I hope she gets better
soon.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com


She's on the mend but a bit on the weak side. The good thing (and she says
this herself) is that she now knows that the piece of string isn't as long
as she thought it was, so we go early with less and not wait to make just
that little bit more.
Maybe I could call in on Pineapple too?
Maybe I could get in a niners game?
I'll just keep racking up reasons to visit!

Hoges in WA

On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 14:27:44 +0700, Bruce
wrote:

Weren't both the United States (USA) and the Confederated States of
America (CSA) democracies? and didn't they fight a war? Wasn't it
significant?

Of course, the US was not a democracy.

Casady

On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 05:07:21 -0600, Richard Casady
wrote:

On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 14:27:44 +0700, Bruce
wrote:

Weren't both the United States (USA) and the Confederated States of
America (CSA) democracies? and didn't they fight a war? Wasn't it
significant?

Of course, the US was not a democracy.

Casady

You are being awful technical here. Has there been any pure
democracies? Even the Athenian "democracy" wouldn't be considered as
such in today's enlightened society; after all the women and slaves
didn't get to vote :-)

The early Scandinavians had the "Thing" that was somewhat of a town
Meeting sort of thing but again, women and slaves needn't apply.

Bruce

Bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)