: Very well said, EEE! However, I've noted that hyprocrisy among the radical left has become an art form. They will use any means available to get their message across (to include half-truths, lies, emotionalism, speciousness, slick legal tactics, blind activism, and even violence, when nothing else works).Of course, the extreme right hasn't, neither has the Government. The Nuremberg rallies were all good, clean, honest fun, nationalism is a wholly positive force, politicians are all honest or they'd be voted out of office, etc, etc.
It might be instructive to remember that coercion is the hallmark of the centralized state. The radical left (I don't mean Communist Russia) is not really any better at coercion than the right. In fact, they're often much less skilled at it, due to a tendency to be less organized.
After all, the radical left doesn't maintain groups of armed men in every town in the country to enforce their politics. The state does.
And before you say that it's different, that they're here to protect and serve us, consider the role they take in many countries in the world...
As to the McLibel trial, Helen and Dave were up against a company well used to lying and dissembling - if McD's told the objective truth they would go out of business fast.
: I suspect that, in their responses, your articulate and well reasoned message (argument) will either be ignored or twisted by them to such a degree that your original premise is no longer recognizable.
Nit pick time. "Articulate"? Maybe so, but only by the norm of pro-McD's posters here. As it contained no questioning, merely assertion, it was neither "well-reasoned" nor an "argument". I won't mention the number of spelling and grammatical errors.
As to "twisting" it. I believe my answers to it yesterday distorted none of it but refuted all of it.
: Like "Paul", who, in a message last month, identified himself as living in "Oz", most of these radicals live in a dream (perhaps a nighmare) world.
To quote one of my favourite authors; "dreams shape the world". What would democracy be without The Republic (by Plato)?
Radical? Certainly.
: Undoubtedly, many of them are well-intentioned, sincere individuals who honestly believe in "the" cause du jour;
"I've no doubt they're wonderful people, but..."
Haven't heard that one before. I suppose it's better than "You take this end of the rope..."
This has to be one of the first pro- posters I've seen who knew enough French to use a fancy phrase. Congratulations, of a sort. Except that it's more of a cause du vie.
:but too many of them are drop-outs from society who are unemployed/unemployable rejects from the 60's, or their contemporary imitators and/or off-spring, who just want to foment anarchism and revolution, or otherwise cause problems for society.
Not that society is capable of causing enough problems for itself.
Oh no. Not inconsiderably so. Or that we in the First World are living off the backs of the rest, not to mention the fact that this wonderful society is consuming rapidly the mineral resources of the world. Or that we are likely to see countries going to war in our lifetimes over the lack of drinking water, as the stuff is being wasted and contaminated ceaselessly by our society.
At least, that's if you accept the UN's advice on it.
If society's thoughtlessness, short-termism, coercion and overconsumption is going to kill me and my closest, damn right I want to cause problems for it.
Gideon.
(If you have any followups to this, post them in the Capitalism and Alternatives room, as this is going off topic).
None.
