Sign up now for castro, inc.’s tourist re-education program
Excerpt from a Reuters article that curiously is only available in Spanish:
Cuba podría tener que "reeducar" a los turistas de Estados Unidos que llegan con una visión distorsionada debido a medio siglo de confrontaciones, si ese país libera los viajes a la isla como parte del nuevo clima de distensión, dijo el miércoles la prensa estatal...
Una columna publicada en Juventud Rebelde, diario de la Unión de Jóvenes Comunistas, dijo que Cuba deberá explicar las ventajas del sistema socialista que Estados Unidos ha intentado socavar.
My translation:
[The castro regime in] Cuba can "reeducate" tourists from the United States that arrive with a distorted view because half century confrontation, if that country allows free travel to the island as part of the new climate of detente, said the official press Wednesday.
A column published in Juventud Rebelde, the daily newspaper of the Union of Young Communists, said that [the castro regime in] Cuba should explain the benefits of socialist system that United States has tried to undermine.
One of the big arguments in favor of free travel to the terrorist totalitarian state of Cuba is that Americans need to see it for themselves. Here the castro regime is telling us point blank that if such travel is allowed that they will make a concerted effort to make a favorable impression such tourists. They chose the Orwellian word "re-education" not me. In a careless moment the regime has let the mask slip off its face for a second.
Re-education is one thing, but name me any one destination that doesn't make a concerted effort to make a favorable impression on tourists.
Of course, Gabriel. Everyone and every place wants to make a good impression. It's what they DON'T show you (i.e. what they're hiding) that really matters. If a flood of Americans are going to indeed provoke change in Cuba, they need to do lots more than see what the regime wants them to see.
The difference is that most tourist destinations aren't totalitarian dictatorships. They aren't trying to cover up human rights abuses and failures of a stalinist economy.
Everything you all say is very true. I just wanted to make the point that no matter what, a city/country will always put on some sort of show for tourists. I guess the levity of my statement didn't come through.
Anyways, I suppose they started the "re-education" campaign when the Congressional delegation that just visited didn't speak to dissidents/opposition groups. I give absolutely no weight to any conclusions those Congressmen made because one can't formulate a sound opinion without looking at all sides of an issue.
There's a naïve quality to those remarks that's very quaint. There are no "two sides" when you're talking about a stalinist state. Would you ever give credence to the "other side" when dicussing the third reich? No. Of course not because its an ideology that has been discredited. Yet castro gets to keep up the charade that communism is legitimate?
What did you expect from the cbc? They think america is an evil country and thus feel right at home with fidel who dosesnt hate the U.S. but is jealous of it and thus it's his enemy.
I disagree. There are always multiple sides to an issue. Just because you disagree with someone's ideology doesn't mean you shouldn't give them the opportunity to hear them out. "There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." - William Shakespeare, Hamlet
Also,I'm sure the CBC have their complaints and disagree with many of the things we do in this country,but I seriously doubt they think America is evil. Your statement is pure hyperbole.
With the regime's suggestion that they want to re-educate American tourists, the regime just weakened the "American left's" main argument for allowing American tourism to Cuba which is to essentially educate Cubans about the values of democracy. But of course, this won't make a hell of a difference to the mainstream media. They will ignore that remark and blindly, deafly keep on repeating the mantra about American tourists being ambassador's of democracy to Cuba.
What I find startling is that the tyranny wants to re-educate American tourist even more! When one goes to Cuba now, everywhere one goes there is "re-education." For instance, tour guides routinely make comparisons between today's Cuba and yesteryear's supposedly squalid poverty, they lie and praise the regime for safeguarding Cuba's patrimony and restoring Old Havana which they allowed to deteriorate in the first place, they even bring up the canard about the 100,000 prostitutes that allegedly worked in Havana and they talk about the embargo. So, I wonder how much more can they do? Tourists already report that they get followed around Havana, etc... More re-education? Amazing! You would think that something like this would set off red flags, but of course, not when it comes to Cuba. Alas, everyone makes excuses for the tyranny.
Gabriel, where is the hyperbole? I see no evidence that these members of the cbc love this country. They do not see that it is exceptional and the best country in the world. And if you say there are two sides to the description of this country as the best in the world, then you and I have nothing to say to each other.
There was not one word about the fact that Cubans are not permitted to leave. Where are the two sides of that? Or of the fact that they can't use computers or shop where tourists shop, or the fact that blacks are severely discriminated against. And you know I could go on and on. They were too busy being in love with tyrants to bother about all of that. I hear these members of the caucus often criticizing this country for things that are immensely worse in Cuba. Don't hand me that there is hyperbole. You seem to be like the caucus members, seeing what you want to see.
Gabriel I want you to go on any blog and start arguing the "other side" in favor of Nazism and tell me what reaction you get. Then remember that communism has killed multiple times more people than Nazism ever did.
Then I want you to read the speeches and backgrounds of people like Bobby Rush and tell me they love this country. Before you accuse me of hyperbole, do some research.
Gabriel: You're drowning in moral relativism. It's sad and self-destructive, and reveals the kind of naive thinking we've created is this pampered, liberal indoctrinated society. Henry was right, there are no "two sides" when it comes to totalitarian communism - it's a proven failure and the antithesis of everything this country (the US) stands for. There's plenty of books that will give you the details. Why don't you pick one up and read it some time, along with others that describe the horrors of other collectivist, statist philosophies like Nazism and Fascism.
And yes, the CBC members that went to Cuba hate just about everything this country stands for. They'd love to drag us into a US version of the Cuban nightmare. They are another sick, twisted product of a free society that all too often flirts with self-immolation. They are a despicable lot. Get real..
“I seriously doubt they think America is evil. Your statement is pure hyperbole.”
Gabriel,
Are you for real? You have to be freaking kidding me.
You know what? I was going to bring in my two cents to counter your naïve, irresponsible and out of reality views but after reading Henry’s, Honey’s and Mambi’s comments I think that they all pretty much summed up what you need to learn (that is if you are willing to learn).
But let me add the following,
The painful truth is that the totalitarian regimes of Communism and Nazism are responsible for the most bloodshed and horrors in the history of mankind and anyone who embraces any of these regimes (like those CBC members are doing today) become accomplices to those horrors (no ifs, buts, maybes or other side of the story, period).
History has already proven that there is definitely NOT “two sides” of the story when it comes to this issue (as you claim) and these individual from the CBC that went to Cuba to lick Castro’s boots have a dubious anti-American past that goes back several years (go back and research this fact like Henry told you).
If America would have embraced the moral relativism doctrine when we had to confronting evil regimes throughout history today we would be saying “Heil Hittler” or the American flag stars would have been replaced by the Hammer and the Sickle and we would be a Communist nation because we would have surrendered to those regimes.
When you look at history since the Spanish/American War of 1898 all the United States of America has done around the world is to send their sons and daughters to die so others can be free like we are here in America.
That ultimate sacrifice made by the American people is what distinguishes us from any other nation on earth.
Yet how many countries that have been recipients of this great American sacrifice spit on us on every opportunity they get?
Furthermore we have today many idiots in this country that are following that “two side” line and that moral relativism because the MSM and the college/university professors are drilling these ideas into their naïve, stupid brains and these are many of the people that went out and voted for our current President last November without understanding the future consequences of their actions.
Now that the new administration has become so chummy with Castro and his ilk as well as indicting luis posada carriles this week, I hope they possess the moral presence to have JoAnne Chesimard aka Assata Shakur extradited from the island for her crimes and seek retribution for the attack on the Brothers To The Rescue planes on 24 February 1996.
Don't hold your breath Mambisa.
Thank you, FreedomForCuba.
Speaking of Posada-Carriles. Read this Times article that was just published and you'll see more evidence of how screwed up this country is:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/08599189046200
It's starts off by insulting President Bush, then goes on to argue that Latin America will respect us more if we indict Posada. They claim we have a double-standard, never mind that we have no evidence against him. They claim we'll receive more support on terrorism if we jail him. Yet, these are the same gutless bastards who argue for restoring relations with Cuba and letting them back into the DEMOCRATIC community of nations. They find no outrage in legitimizing a brutal 50-year dictatorship and what that would say about our support for freedom and democracy. If that's what Latin America wants, then tell them to go screw themselves. Unfortunately, much like the media in the US, Latin America is now dominated by left-wing governments that don't have an ounce of moral fiber. Here's their mantra: Castro dictatorship is ok, but Posada is bad; Castro is justified killing thousands, but anyone who fights back is a bad. They're all worthless scoundrels, unfortunately, our own country is now run by one of them.
“They're all worthless scoundrels, unfortunately, our own country is now run by one of them.”
Mambi,
You hit the nail right on the head, no punches pulled…LOL
Honey you don't have to thank me, the truth is the truth and it must be shouted.
FFC; you're the man. All of us here have to continue fighting...never stop putting out the truth..Right is on our side. Keep up the fight!
I can certainly see Gabriel's point of view. Normally, it would make perfect sense however, there are indeed certain situations in life that are indeed black and white and the Cuban nightmare is one of them.
First of all, we're talking about an illegitimate government. But more importantly, we're speaking about what is essentially a mafia, which uses extrajudicial murder, arbitrary theft, etc, to enrich those at the very top. Murder, theft, forced exile, health care (or denial of) are all used as tools and/or weapons by this regime. The point of view of Fidel and Co. is largely irrelevant because it does not represent the interests of the Cuban people. Rather, it represents the interests of two people: Fidel and Raul Castro and a few other individuals lucky enough to live within the castle walls.
The Castro dictatorship won't survive the deaths of Fidel and Raul so I see no point in entertaining their narcissistic fantasies. Henry's analogy of Nazi Germany is right on the money. Would you entertain their side of the argument as well? Of course not.
Once there is a legitimate government installed working for the will of the people, real talks can begin. Right now, Cuba is lacking a government.
Sorry, I couldn't respond earlier...law school has been kicking me in the rear as of late. I don't have the time to respond to everyone's arguments, so I'll respond to a few of your comments. This blog provides a forum that allows us to freely express our views, something we all hope to see in Cuba in the very near future. Thank you Babalu Blog for creating this forum that allows for civil discourse. I appreciate everyone's responses and the discussion ensuing my comments.
" They do not see that it is exceptional and the best country in the world. And if you say there are two sides to the description of this country as the best in the world, then you and I have nothing to say to each other."
Honey: I agree that this is the best country in the world. I wouldn't want to live anywhere else. However, there are two sides to that issue because there are many that would disagree. I'm sure the majority of Spaniards believe Spain is the best country in the world just like many Canadians would argue that Canada is the best country in the world. Heck, I'm even sure there are many in Cuba that would argue Cuba is the best country in the world. Further, I'm sure all of the people I have mentioned above could come up with a list of why they believe America is not the best country in the world.
Henry: "Gabriel I want you to go on any blog and start arguing the "other side" in favor of Nazism and tell me what reaction you get. Then remember that communism has killed multiple times more people than Nazism ever did.
Then I want you to read the speeches and backgrounds of people like Bobby Rush and tell me they love this country. Before you accuse me of hyperbole, do some research."
Oh, the reaction would be absolutely horrible...I don't want to open that can of worms! However, I would never advocate Nazism just like I would never advocate communism. Regardless, I am sure there are some very intellectual Nazis out there that would give us a run for our money in a debate. In respect to Bobby Rush, I'm sure he would tell you that he says the things the things he does out of love for this country. Once again, just because you may disagree with the policy he advocates doesn't mean we must revert to the puerility of saying someone who served this country in Viet Nam and presently as a Congressman thinks this country is evil. I'm sure many on this blog would have some nasty things to say about American foreign policy and the Obama administration if the embargo were lifted. Does that mean you think this country is evil? Certainly not. It only means you disagree with the policy. Further, if that were to happen, I would be the first to say your comments would be purely out of love for this country and Cuba.
FreedomforCuba: " anyone who embraces any of these regimes (like those CBC members are doing today) become accomplices to those horrors (no ifs, buts, maybes or other side of the story, period)."
One could say Nixon embraced China during his presidency. I'm not ready to admit that the US is an accomplice to the many horrors the Chinese government has committed. Moreover, G.W. Bush certainly embraced Saudi Arabia. He even went so far as to kiss Crown Prince Abdullah and hold his hand. Saudi Arabians have no freedom of speech or religion. They are also notorious for their historic subjugation of women. Following your reasoning, President Bush is an accomplice to human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia. I'm sorry, but I can't come to terms with your contention because I don't think President Bush, or the US for that matter, is an accomplice to what occurs in Saudi Arabia.
"the college/university professors are drilling these ideas into their naïve, stupid brains and these are many of the people that went out and voted for our current President last November without understanding the future consequences of their actions.
I'm assuming this was directed at me. I apologize if your comments were not. Anyways, if they were, let me respond. Most of my university professors were conservatives who advocated neoclassical economics, specifically the Chicago school of economics. I generally adhere to those principles as well. Also, I didn't vote for Obama. In respect to your "naive, stupid brain" comment, I will not respond to ad hominem arguments.
Mambi: "Henry was right, there are no "two sides" when it comes to totalitarian communism - it's a proven failure..."
I agree. Communism is a proven failure. However, a Marxist purist would argue otherwise. He/she would argue that our conclusion is imprudent and presumptuous. When Marx wrote the 'Communist Manifesto' he wrote it for he thought would happen in Great Britain. Essentially, communism was intended for countries who had reached the level of industrialization that Britain reached during that period. He/she would say communism was intended for post-industrial societies. It was certainly not intended for countries like China, Russia, Viet Nam or Cuba. This isn't my point of my view. I totally abhor communism. I'm just throwing the "other-side" out there.
Anastasio: "Once there is a legitimate government installed working for the will of the people, real talks can begin."
Real talks began in Poland before the communists were willing to abdicate power. The communist government sat down with Solidarity and other opposition groups to formulate the "Round Table Agreement" which laid the foundation for the overthrow of communism. Unfortunately, the regime in Cuba wouldn't do the same. The only reason these talks began in Poland was because of the social unrest that Solidarity was able to foment. That is why the US must make a more concerted effort to support dissidents and civil society in Cuba, so that they can incite the same social unrest. Maybe if there were widespread social unrest in Cuba the regime would be willing to sit down and talk...maybe, just maybe...just a thought. I think its worth a shot. We can't underestimate the power of social unrest. It kicked the Britons out of India, led to the successful Civil Rights Movement of the 60s, and successful overthrow of Ceau?escu.
On a final note, I want to clear things up because it appears that some people have interpreted my views to mean that I'm sort of pinko-commie. So, here I go...I am NOT a communist. I believe that man's destiny can only be fulfilled in free and open democratic societies. Some probably think I am a democrat, but I am not. I am a Republican whose views are some sort of complex amalgam that combines a little bit of Honest Abe, some Teddy Roosevelt, and a little bit of Ron Paul. Most importantly, just like everyone on here, I want to see a democratic Cuba. I suppose some ire has arisen because I feel we should take a different route than most on this blog advocate. But thats OK, the best policies are formulated when people of divergent thoughts congregate to solve the same problem. I'm here to listen to a different point of view and learn from you guys. I hope you all are willing to do the same.
Thank you for welcoming me to Babalu!
Gabriel this is getting very tiresome.
Oh, the reaction would be absolutely horrible...I don't want to open that can of worms! However, I would never advocate Nazism just like I would never advocate communism. Regardless, I am sure there are some very intellectual Nazis out there that would give us a run for our money in a debate.
This isn't some debate club activity. This isn't a theoretical exercise. Communism is just as insidious an ideology as Nazism. But no "intellectual Nazi" would ever be given any credibility. There is a double standard. The media loves a leftist. Your posts smack of moral relativism as if communism is no different from representative democracy and the that the pros and cons of each can be debated. Please stop. You're making yourself look ridiculous.
In respect to Bobby Rush, I'm sure he would tell you that he says the things the things he does out of love for this country. Once again, just because you may disagree with the policy he advocates doesn't mean we must revert to the puerility of saying someone who served this country in Viet Nam and presently as a Congressman thinks this country is evil.
I'm sure that somewhere down deep Tim McVeigh had a love for this country too. Problem is he had an odd way of showing it. How about Jeremiah Wright? Do you know why the black nationalist movement was called that? Do you think it was because of an abiding love for this country? Your problem is that you ascribe "reasonableness" to everyone. You're a reasonable person so you think everyone must be just like you. Problem is that there are unreasonable people out there. Fidel Castro for one. They cannot be reasoned with, it's not in their nature.
I'm sure many on this blog would have some nasty things to say about American foreign policy and the Obama administration if the embargo were lifted. Does that mean you think this country is evil? Certainly not. It only means you disagree with the policy. Further, if that were to happen, I would be the first to say your comments would be purely out of love for this country and Cuba.
Please quit while your behind. None of us have joined radical anti-American movements. Bobby Rush isn't just a guy who disagrees with aspects of our country's policy's. He's the typical black militant hate monger.
"Gabriel this is getting very tiresome."
George: I'm sure we could go on for days here, so let's agree to disagree =).
It's Henry, not George. And yeah we can agree to disagree. Like you and the murdering communists can agree to disagree. It's all very civilized and rational, see?
Woops, sorry about that Henry...my bad. Nope, I can't agree to disagree with a murdering communist. We both want those murdering communists ousted.
But you want to have a reasonable debate with the one who gives aid and comfort to the murdering communist? Expecting to win what?
Gabriel,
You’re unmasking yourself,
What about Obama bowing to the Saudi King the other day?
You did not mention that one and that was much worse that Bush’s offense.
There you go again with your two sides of the story and you moral relativism. You bring the Saudis into this topic when even with their totalitarian society they have murdered a minuscule, tiny fraction of people compared with the tenths of millions slaughtered by Communism and Nazism.
By the way, I never agreed of President Nixon reopening relations with China as I don’t agree doing business with any Communist nation on earth, so don’t rub that one on me.
Then you call yourself a Republican and a Ron Paul follower, go figure.
In my opinion, Ron Paul is an ASSHOLE and I don’t follow or admire or look-up to ASSHOLES, period (that’s my style). You want to follow him that’s your choice.
If President Obama reestablishes relations with Havana tomorrow I blame him and his Marxist values only for that decision, not the American people.
I only blame the American people for electing a Marxist anti-American bullshit artist to the highest office and I live convinced that the American people are going to pay a very painful price for that decision.
When all is said and done I live convinced that he’d make George W. Bush look like a great President.
Unfortunately we’re all going to pay for the stupidity of those that voted for Obama and that’s the way is going to be.
Regarding Cuba you need to understand a painful fact, the Cuban generation of today is the byproduct of fifty years of Communist indoctrination and the removal of religious values. The Cuban people sold their souls to the devil and have been paying deadly for it.
The majority of the Cuban people will not stand up to the Castro brothers as long as they keep receiving remittances from their relatives abroad as they don’t have the courage, the integrity or the moral values to stand-up to the Castro brothers.
You want to be reasonable (like Henry said) with our enemies and you’ll learn a painful lesson that no College or University will ever teach you.
Please get the class thesis/theory out of your head because the real world is way much different of what you think it is and reality can become painful.
I stand by my previous posts and you can take you moral relativism and your two sides of the issues back to your college because you have lots to learn that will not be thought in any schools.
And by the way regardless of what the Canadian or the Spaniards or any other country on earth thinks of themselves, America and only America is the GREATEST country in the world and there IS NOT two sides of the story on that one as you claim (there you go again with your moral relativism).
The fact is that America has earned that honor with an enormous price in blood paid by its children while freeing other nations over the last one hundred years.
Like Henry said, quick while you’re behind.
I meant,
"quit while you’re behind."
FreedomForCuba,
"What about Obama bowing to the Saudi King the other day?
You did not mention that one and that was much worse that Bush’s offense.
There you go again with your two sides of the story and you moral relativism. You bring the Saudis into this topic when even with their totalitarian society they have murdered a minuscule, tiny fraction of people compared with the tenths of millions slaughtered by Communism and Nazism.
By the way, I never agreed of President Nixon reopening relations with China as I don’t agree doing business with any Communist nation on earth, so don’t rub that one on me. "
It doesn't matter whether what Obama did was worse or not. Its actually completely irrelevant. What is relevant is your flawed "guilt by association" reasoning. Per your reasoning, which is actually an association fallacy, America is one of the worst participants in human rights abuses because of our relations with China. Additionally, since the fall of the USSR our presidents have been pretty chummy with Russia's leaders. As you very well know, Russia is definitely not a model of democracy. So, I guess according to you the US is also an accomplice to the lack of free press in Russia. Further, I never stated you agreed with Nixon's policy. I simply used that example to "unmask" your flawed reasoning. Let me ask you a question. If one of your very close relatives committed a violent crime and you visited him in prison, would that make you an accomplice? According to your logic, yes. But, we all know here that simply isn't the truth.
"In my opinion, Ron Paul is an ASSHOLE and I don’t follow or admire or look-up to ASSHOLES, period (that’s my style). You want to follow him that’s your choice."
That is your opinion, and I respect your opinion. Thank you for respecting mine.
"If President Obama reestablishes relations with Havana tomorrow I blame him and his Marxist values only for that decision, not the American people.
I only blame the American people for electing a Marxist anti-American bullshit artist to the highest office and I live convinced that the American people are going to pay a very painful price for that decision. "
Considering you espouse this "guilt by association" logic, I would think that you believe the American people to be accomplices to Obama's policies when Americans voted him in by a sizable amount. It appears to me that you have conflicting values.
"You want to be reasonable (like Henry said) with our enemies and you’ll learn a painful lesson that no College or University will ever teach you.
Please get the class thesis/theory out of your head because the real world is way much different of what you think it is and reality can become painful.
I stand by my previous posts and you can take you moral relativism and your two sides of the issues back to your college because you have lots to learn that will not be thought in any schools."
I like how you attack me personally and evade arguing the issues. Please, attack my arguments. The use of ad hominem arguments is a tactic used by those who are unable to find fault with an argument. Ad hominem arguments do not discredit your opposition; they only discredit the person using them.
By the way, the association fallacy you advocate is another example of an ad hominem argument.
Go play your semantic theoretical games with your dungeons and dragons buddies. Please.
Henry, I was actually going to commend you in my previous post because you haven't attacked me personally. I was going to commend you on your ability to avoid juvenile attacks. I guess I can no longer say that. You're too articulate and intelligent to have to resort to personal attacks.
Semantics? I'm not playing with semantics. I'm just demonstrating FreedomForCuba's competing values and inability to argue without using ad hominem arguments.
Dude seriously, I've personally been writing about this issue every day for four years. My patience with know-it-all types is extremely thin. Here's an ad hominem for you:
Fuck off sir.
I like to use logic rather than ad hominem when I argue, too.
Euclid's Geometry uses logic to build up a fascinating system. But that entire subject is based on building blocks which are nothing more than assumptions. These assumptions, axioms and postulates, must be accepted without question or the entirety falls apart. If one wants to solve all problems, construct more theorems, one cannot do that without accepting the original assumptions. There are no two sides of the story to those assumptions.
If anyone wants to argue with me about politics, there are certain assumptions that we must both accept or I will not continue:
1. America is the greatest country in the world.
2. Capitalism is the best economic system in the world.
3. Communism doesn't work anywhere or any time it has been
tried.
4. Israel is the best country in the Middle East.
You can see that I am an intolerant person. I cannot tolerate moral relativism, giving up our sovereignty for international rule, or our currency to an international one, experiments with socialism in our government and such. There are no two sides to the story on those things and anyone who tries to play semantic games with me on those items, I give to them Klavan's description of the liberal answer: "Shut up!"
A rapist hates women. So why would I have any interest in his side of the story? Islamists hate Israel and the United States or any free country. Why would I have any interest in their side of the story? The cbc, which I call the ccc, were enraptured with tyrants. Why would I be interested in any part of their side of the story?
As for my side of the story, I'm going to do my best to get to the tea party tomorrow.
Gabriel,
I second Honey’s comments, you want to continue with your rant then I’ll reply to you with the same “ad hominem” Henry sent you:
Fuck off Sir.
My patience with know-it-types like you is also very thin as I deal with these types of individuals in the corporate world on a regular basis and at the end of the day they’re all full of shit.
Trust me when I tell you’re wining any arguments here with any of us.
One correction Gabriel,
Trust me when I tell YOU’RE NOT wining any arguments here with any of us.
I countered your arguments with good enough points and straight values (yet you continue with your moral relativism and two sides of the story as counters, go figure).
By the way my values don't compete as you claim. I have been very clear about my values from the very beginning, so please spare me that bullshit.
It is just that you know-it-all attitude does not let you see the forest from the trees and decide to ignore them and try to twist things.
You're one of these typical young colleges types that think that you know-it-all and too smart for everyone else and get insulted when I tell you that you have much more to learn than a College/University will ever teach you. This is not a personal attack on my side to you, is the truth that you're not yet able, willing and ready to learn.
One day later on in life you'll learn this lesson and realize that I was not lying to you.
And yes, I'm just as intolerant as Honey's as I share her views one hundred percent.
I think that I have said enough.
Henry: “Dude seriously, I've personally been writing about this issue every day for four years. My patience with know-it-all types is extremely thin.”
I suppose you’re calling me a know-it-all. Yet by stating that you have written about this issue everyday for four years, you imply that you know it all. You just blatantly contradicted yourself. Also, how can I be a know-it-all when I’ve already previously stated that I’m here to learn?
Honey: “If anyone wants to argue with me about politics, there are certain assumptions that we must both accept or I will not continue…There are no two sides to the story on those things”
It really isn’t an argument if people agree with you. It appears you only speak to people who you agree with. That is simply a sign that you lack the ability to engage your opposition intellectually. It appears to me that just because someone has opposing views you flat out deny even hearing them out. Correct me if I'm wrong, but last I checked every leader of a totalitarian government does the same thing. In actuality, if you were to look at the other side of things, you would construct better arguments because you would be able to better understand the weaknesses in your own arguments – there is no such thing as a perfect argument. Every argument has its weaknesses. Guess what? These weaknesses are the other side of the story.
FreedomForCuba: “Trust me when I tell YOU’RE NOT wining [sic] any arguments here with any of us.”
Well, of course…I can’t win here with you as judge and jury. Anyways, civil discourse is not a zero-sum game; it’s just an exchange of ideas.
FreedomForCuba: “I countered your arguments with good enough points and straight values…”
Actually, you have failed to counter my exposure of your association fallacy. You haven’t even addressed it. You say I twisted your words, but all I did was use your very own reasoning to create analogies. By creating these analogies, I demonstrated the inherent flaws in your argument. I wasn't playing with semantics. I was playing with your reasoning.
FreedomForCuba: “(yet you continue with your moral relativism and two sides of the story as counters, go figure).”
Yes, I do. The philosophy of moral relativism allows man to decide for himself what is right and wrong. A democracy allows the public to determine, by means of majoritarian principles and the concomitant apparatuses, what is right and wrong. What’s wrong with that? Aren’t you an ardent supporter of democracy? Illustration: We, in this country, through the democratic process, have decided to make marijuana illegal. But, the Dutch have decided otherwise. Now, I know what you’re probably thinking: “Those pesky Dutch are socialists!” But, you know what? The Netherlands is a parliamentary democracy. By means of the democratic process, they have decided that it is OK. The Dutch have elected these alleged socialists into office. Is their democracy any less legitimate because they have elected individuals who espouse socialist principles, a philosophy we disagree with? No.
You slap the label of moral relativist on me as if it’s some sort of insult. Would you be insulted if a communist called you a supporter of democracy? How about you argue the flaws of moral relativism? Don’t just tell me my opinions are illegitimate because I espouse certain principles of moral relativism. Talk to me about the faults of moral relativism and why those faults discredit my opinions. That’s the tactic you should be using, not ad hominem and evasion.
Honey: “You can see that I am an intolerant person”
FreedomForCuba: “And yes, I'm just as intolerant as Honey's [sic] as I share her views one hundred percent.”
Your intolerance is plainly obvious. However, I am surprised that you carry that badge with pride. Tolerance is the cornerstone of every democratic society. The reason there is no democracy in Cuba is because the regime is intolerant of anything and everything that opposes their “revolution”. Chavez has closed down TV stations because he is intolerant of his opposition.
The very founding of our great nation was based upon tolerance. The colonists came to this country to flee intolerance in Great Britain. The intolerance of the English Crown led the Pilgrims to colonize our country many centuries ago. Our rights to freedom of speech, assembly, and religion are based upon tolerance.
What is the cornerstone of totalitarianism? Intolerance.
FFC, once again you “unmasked” your competing values. It is contradictory to fight for democracy while proudly carrying the flag of intolerance.
I suppose you’re calling me a know-it-all. Yet by stating that you have written about this issue everyday for four years, you imply that you know it all. You just blatantly contradicted yourself. Also, how can I be a know-it-all when I’ve already previously stated that I’m here to learn?
I didn't contradict myself. I simply explained that I've spent the last four years debunking the type of horseshit that you're peddling and that I simply cannot counter every little nit that you want to pick. You can read our archives (all 11,000 posts) if you want. And you don't really want to learn. You want to come here and pretend that somehow you have a higher level of cognitive development or something. Here's the thing, this isn't some theoretical debate. This is literally life and death. The money a tourist takes to Cuba today may buy the rifle that kills a member of the political opposition tomorrow.
You depart from a premise that the enemy has legitimate points to make. And that's a false premise that is exposed by actual history. The castro dictatorship is capricious, arbitrary and highly personalized around the idiosyncrasies of its leader fidel castro. Everything the regime does (and I mean EVERYTHING) is solely for the prolongation of the dictatorship. If a Cuban citizen happens to benefit, it's a coincidence.
I believe you simply don't know enough about the true nature of this regime otherwise you wouldn't talk the way you do, as if it were an abstraction. You would be spending your time criticizing the regime elsewhere not parsing my words here.
Simply put, I don't have time to teach you what you need to learn.
“Your intolerance is plainly obvious. However, I am surprised that you carry that badge with pride.”
Gabriel,
Yes I carry the badge of intolerance with price especially around idiots that think they know it all and they don’t.
We (Henry, Honey and Mambi) gave you more than enough reasons to prove why we don’t believe in moral relativism and the two sides of the story (that you so strongly defend) apply in relation to the posting that this threat originated from.
Yet you have continued on and on, ranting and throwing issues and topics that don’t have relation to the original topic trying to prove your worthless point.
It is obvious to me in the way that you replied to Honey that you have an intelligence complex the spills through your pores (take it as you wish).
I second Henry with the fact that I also don’t have the time to teach what you need (or don’t want) to learn.
Honestly, I don’t think that you’re not smart enough to learn what we have in life regardless of your eloquence, choice of words and long posts, period.
You kind of remind me of our current President.
You came to this post to lecture us like we’re inferior beings (and you’re the great know it all College guy) without knowing or having experienced what we have been through in life.
I told you that I had said enough to you and yet, you continue ranting and ranting thinking that you’re making a strong point and winning the argument.
Honestly Dude, the more you write the more you look like a complete fool (take offense if you so wish, that’s your problem).
The last thing I have to tell you Gabriel (as I’m getting tired of your worthless rant) is the following:
For a person like you that thinks that you’re so intelligent (a legend in his own mind), I have an advantage over that you’ll never be able to overcome in your lifetime.
That advantage is that before I came to America and I went through the education system here I also grew-up in the belly of the beast for twelve years of my life (living under the Castro dictatorship), and that experience was the greatest education I got in my life (an education that you’ll never get at an Ivy League school in America) because it taught me not to fall for the moral relativism and two sides of the story bullshit concept (that you champion) to justify the unjustifiable.
Evil is Evil, it is just as simple as black and white, and the rest is just bullshit.
Gabriel,
I urge you to read the comment guidelines of this blog. This thread has already outlived it's useful life.