[117151] in Cypherpunks
Re: Sanctions (3)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Secret Squirrel)
Fri Aug 27 09:43:08 1999
Date: 27 Aug 1999 13:21:37 -0000
From: Secret Squirrel <secret_squirrel@nym.alias.net>
Message-ID: <06d2eecd05ca002512c40420752b5c7d@anonymous>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Reply-To: Secret Squirrel <secret_squirrel@nym.alias.net>
(continued from Sanctions (2))
> An intelligent "conservationist" position would be
> to INVEST HEAVILY in alternative energy sources...
> <yada, yada, yada, another tree-hugger rant>
>
> Of course, that might mean a change in the status
> quo, which would be unacceptable.
I am completely unmoved by arguments against my
country's economy or lifestyle based on how much
poorer the people of other countries are. I am
also completely unmoved by environmentalist arguments
that I should _anticipate_ future resource situations
by crippling myself _now_, in advance of the free-
market incentives that will automatically arise if
and when petroleum resources dwindle significantly.
The last I heard, reserves were still _increasing_
as we look for and find more oil. It's also the
case that when we "deplete" most oil fields, it is
by the removal of only a fraction of the oil they
contain -- the oil that is easy to extract. Free
market prices will one day make the extraction of
the remainder of oil from those fields worth doing,
which is probably a greater quantity than all the
oil extracted to date. I'm compelled to observe that
people as fanatically obsessed as you are with things
like oil and imagined pollution have a real mental
problem. Maybe you're too young to remember what
real pollution was like, so the farcical dark
comedy of the present environmental movement escapes
you.
>>that because Hussein seems to do such silly and
>>dangerous things with the revenue when he sells the
>>oil.
>
> Like feed at least SOME of his people? Like buy
> medicine?
You know perfectly well what I meant, asshole. Like
building chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
Since he has shown himself to be dangerous, since he
has already invaded a neighboring country, and since
he is the one who wishes to commingle belligerent and
nominal activities and make it impossible to sort them
out, fuck him and fuck all the people in his country
who allow him to draw breath.
>>The blood of Iraqis, though, makes very poor lubricant
>>for machinery. I'll happily see another 1.7 million of
>>them die, though, if that's what it takes to get them
>>to stay the fuck inside their own borders and stay the
>>fuck out of countries friendly to me.
>
> When are you going to ask YOUR government to do the
> same?
Oh, I do. Only your blinders and your low intellectual
capacity would allow you to presume without evidence
that I don't.
>We are the most generous people on the face of the
>planet. You're smoking some really bad socialist
>
> It's easy to be generous when you have more THAN
> ANYONE ELSE.
That's precisely the demented, anti-American attitude
that I think we should stop catering to or appeasing.
Clearly, if we were less generous, you would be
condemning us for that. Being generous, all we win is
your trivialization of it with a strong flavor of
condemnation, as if doing well were a negative. If you
think we're doing well explicitly at the expense of the
rest of the world, then you think that the world economy
is a zero sum game, which apparent belief I pointed out
earlier and which you appear not to have understood.
Much of socialist/communist argument is based on the
implicit assumption that all of human interaction is a
zero sum game. It boils down to, "If he has something,
he must have taken it from someone else -- someone like
you." Unfortunately, that appeals to the emotions of
stupid and uneducated people who are afflicted with
Envy, Jealousy and/or Covetousness.
> When you have about twice as much as you *need* to
> live, it's easy to give 10%. When you are about
> starving, it's a lot tougher.
And if I were to meet with your approval by having
_less_ and thereby being _unable_ to help anyone
else, that would be fucking _good_ in your book?
Don't tell me how much I _need_ to _live_, you cock-
smoking commie fuckwit! That's the same as having
the gall to tell me how much I "need" to earn, or
how much computer I "need" to do my work, or how
large my dick "needs" to be, and trying to prohibit
anything more than that. That's a direct assault on
liberty, and you are in the wrong fucking place to
be preaching that tired, discredited, pus-filled
dreck.
> And no, I am not saying we should give away what
> we have just because they don't. I AM say that we
> didn't get it by playing fair, by following our own
> rules or anyone elses. Our government has been
> first class thieves and hoods.
You're being inconsistent. And irrational. Inconsistent
because you earlier used classical communist rhetoric
to attack us for "having too much." The sequitur to that
would be trying to make a case for us to give it away,
as the U.N. has been whining about for ages. Irrational
because the only way your argument could have legs would
be if you were also claiming that virtually all of the U.S.
success were attributable to theft and bullying, a
proposition so absurd and out of touch with the
magnitude of things that it doesn't even warrant serious
dismantlement.
>>Truthmonger
>
> Lying sack of shit.
I lied nowhere, nor did you call attention to any
alleged lies. You only took issue with the correctness
and interpretation of statements I made, something
that, at greatest, could only be seen to be challenging
the extent and accuracy of my knowledge, not my
truthfulness or honesty in rebutting your statements
or offering my own.
So, I have to conclude that you also have a serious
problem with language, since you clearly have no
concept of what "lying" is and confuse it with
disagreement with your own muddled views.
TruthMonger
