Xref: utzoo sci.space.shuttle:2089 talk.politics.misc:18242
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!twltims
From: twltims@watmath.waterloo.edu (Tracy Tims)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Internationalist posturings.
Summary: "Debate" with Steve Ryan.
Message-ID: <22488@watmath.waterloo.edu>
Date: 30 Nov 88 17:26:26 GMT
References: <1969@garth.UUCP> <22411@watmath.waterloo.edu> <2044@garth.UUCP>
Reply-To: twltims@watmath.waterloo.edu (Tracy Tims)
Distribution: na
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 131

>>	2)  It's OK for you to be American.  [Tracy]
>
>And it's okay for you to be a Canadian. Why do you need to feel so defensive?
>Why do you feel it is right that Spencer posts snide remarks for Canada yet
>asking him to stop warrants a deluge of hate mail?  [Steve]

Steve, I am going to respond to you because I think it is the responsibility
of every adult to help the mentally disadvantaged whenever possible.  Your
latest posting fills me with compassion and concern.

Here is a direct quote from my private letter to you, which you had
previously (and very, very thoughtfully indeed) made available to all
the other nice people reading news:

     	In general I agree with you.  If you aren't paying, you're a spectator.
     	Sometimes Henry's aggressive comments about the U.S. space program
     	leave me a little uncomfortable.  (Although sometimes the situation is
     	more complicated, which is why nations have foreign policy.  Our
     	actions don't exist in isolation.)  [Tracy]

Please do not take this as a criticism, because anyone can make a mistake,
especially with such complicated material as this.  You seem to have gotten
your concepts backwards.  I am not saying it is right that Henry Spencer "posts
snide remarks for Canada."  In fact, I am agreeing with your concerns,
although perhaps not completely.  Perhaps if you read this part of my letter
over again six or seven times you will see what I mean.  Don't be afraid to
have your special-ed teacher help you with it.  She/he won't laugh at you,
and neither will I.

>>	3)  When you respond to comments made by other people, your response
>>	    will have greater effect if you address the issue.  [Tracy]
>
>Yes, indeed.  [Steve]
>
>>		1)  There are countries in the world who have a similar levels
>>		    of freedom to the U.S..  The people who live in them are
>>		    pretty comfortable and are not looking to the U.S. to
>>		    provide a shining example.  [Tracy]
>
>In your haste you overlooked my comment on that exact point.  [Steve]

Actually, Stevie (do you mind if I call you that?), I did not overlook your
comment on that exact point.  Here it is:

	"I'm sure this is a comfort to all those of Northern Ireland as the UK
	Parliament `adjusts' their civil liberties."  [Stevie Ryan]

I suppose you thought this was a politically and morally astute counter-
example, didn't you?  And perhaps I could see where you got that idea.  But
if you examine my statement, I asserted that there were countries where the
natives felt they were free.  (This is a "paraphrase" of my original statements.
A paraphrase is the restatement of an idea in a different form.)

Your "comment" on the matter I suppose means "oh but look, aren't there
countries where perhaps this isn't true?".  And a such precious way of stating
it!  But you see, both your statement and mine can be simultaneously correct.
It's O.K. if you are confused by this.  Many people who cannot deal with this
sort of relationship between ideas go on to lead productive and satisfying
lives.  Don't give it another thought.

If you meant something different by your response, perhaps you should have
been just a bit more clear.  If you feel that there is an essential weakness
in all western political systems excluding the U.S., you should say that,
and support your argument in a consistent and (most importantly) coherent
way.  Don't assume your readers are going to read your thoughts as well.
And just a little bit of advice:  in a discussion, it is a bad strategic
move to immediately occupy the low ground.

>
>>	                                 I think that now is a good time for
>>	    you to start practicing reason and discourse.  [Tracy]
>
>Perhaps it would help if you read all that written rather than reading a few
>words and reading in your desired conclusion.  [Steve]

I have read all that you wrote, and have also noticed the way you deal with
others.   This line of debate could lead to a comparison between you and I.
We should avoid that.  You should just go on and live life, as best you can,
without making discouraging comparisons between yourself and others.

>Oh, I have learned one thing and that is to attack immediately. I have tried
>by polite and only have been savaged in return. I made that mistake again in
>requesting posters in Canada to be polite while making conciliatory statements
>about Canadian identity, and still you feel the need to attack anything which
>disturbs your blithe ignorance.  [Steve]

What a tragedy is life.  Here we have Stevie, perhaps in what should be the
prime of his life, and the cruel fates have arranged that he should learn
only the one thing.

Well Stevie, here is the rest of my letter to you.  Other readers, please
take note of the "cowardice", "Canadian jingoism" and "blithe ignorance".
And Stevie, I figured out why you classed my letter as "hate mail".  I said
"...  I am sure you are a reasonable person...".  I most humbly apologise for
offending you, and I hereby retract my statement.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[The rest of my original letter, just for reference.  Ignore freely.]
But this amuses me:

>  Stevie Ryan:
>- Does Canada still have an Official Secrets Act? I don't keep track of these
>  things. I do think it is rather tacky for any country which does have such
>  legislation to criticise another which does protect freedom of speech, at
>  least in principle.
>
>  Our Bill of Rights applies to everybody
>  within our borders, regardless of citizenship. How often does that occur?
>  In fact, how many countries even have a Bill of Rights?

This is such an apparently typical U.S. view!  Because your country has these
particularly worded laws (which only seem to be observed when convenient) you
think that somehow you are more "free".

The attitudes of the people are at least as important as the statutes.  And
I have news for you.  We're pretty free up here!  You don't see hordes of
oppressed Canadians (or Western Europeans) coming to the U.S. because they
aren't free at home.

Forgive me (because I don't want this to sound as strong as it will, and I
am sure you are a reasonable person) but the two paragraphs above are what
us hicks usually think of as "typical American ideological arrogance."

There are positive aspects of U.S. culture and politics, but there are
negative aspects as well.  The same is true for other equally civilized
countries.  It's just that some of the details are different.
-- 
--
Tracy William Lewis Tims
University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
twltims@watmath.waterloo.edu, uunet!watmath!twltims